In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench, led by Justice R. M. Joshi, granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a case involving allegations of a false promise of marriage. The court ruled that the absence of a clear refusal to marry in the First Information Report (FIR) weakened the case of the informant, who had accused the main defendant of establishing a relationship under the pretext of marriage.
Case Background
The case revolved around a complaint filed by the informant, who claimed that she had been involved in a relationship with the main accused since 2017, after meeting him on Facebook. According to the FIR, the accused allegedly promised to marry her, leading to a prolonged relationship. The informant also accused him of establishing physical relations on the basis of this promise and alleged that his family mistreated her when she pressed for marriage.
The case was registered at the Karjat Police Station in Ahmednagar under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including allegations related to cheating, outraging modesty, and physical assault.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The central legal issue before the court was whether the accused had entered into a relationship with the informant on the basis of a false promise of marriage, and whether there was a subsequent refusal to fulfill that promise. The informant’s counsel argued that the accused had maintained a five-year relationship with her, but had ultimately failed to marry her, constituting a false promise.
On behalf of the accused, counsel contended that there was no explicit refusal to marry mentioned in the FIR, which is a necessary element to establish a case of false promise. They further argued that other accused individuals in the case had already been granted interim bail and had cooperated with the investigation.
Court’s Observations
In its ruling, the court emphasized that for a case of false promise of marriage to be valid, there must be a clear and specific refusal to marry. Justice R. M. Joshi noted:
“In absence of any specific statement, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the informant.”
The court observed that without such an allegation, it could not conclude that the accused had misled the informant with a false promise. Furthermore, the court dismissed additional allegations made during the hearing regarding blackmail, as they were not part of the FIR or supplementary statements.
The Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court ultimately granted anticipatory bail to the accused, directing them to cooperate with the investigation. The court stated that the accused were to furnish a personal bond and comply with other conditions, such as reporting regularly to the police station and refraining from interfering with the investigation or contacting witnesses.
The court’s ruling underscored the importance of clear and specific allegations in cases involving false promises of marriage, particularly the need to demonstrate a clear refusal to marry, without which such allegations may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment:
1. Absence of Refusal: The court ruled that the absence of an explicit refusal to marry weakened the informant’s case, as such a refusal is crucial to establish a false promise of marriage.
2. Insufficient Evidence of Blackmail: Allegations of blackmail raised during the hearing were dismissed due to lack of inclusion in the FIR or supplementary statements.
3. Bail Granted: The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, highlighting the absence of key allegations necessary to substantiate the charges.
