The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a 34-year-old cameraman accused of sexual assault, ruling that whether a false promise of marriage vitiates consent is a matter for trial.
Case Background:
– The complainant, a 36-year-old woman, alleged that the accused represented himself as a divorcee and promised to marry her.
– They were in a live-in relationship from 2023 to February 2025, during which the accused allegedly demanded money and gifts.
– The complainant claimed she discovered obscene chats and photographs of other women on the accused’s phone, leading to her realization that he had no intention of marrying her.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Amit Borkar observed that the relationship appeared to be consensual for a considerable length of time.
The court noted that determining whether consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage requires appreciation of evidence and can only be decided during trial.
The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and custodial interrogation was no longer required since the investigation was complete.
Conditions for Bail:
The accused was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more solvent sureties.
The application was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered at Kalwa Police
Conditions include:
Non-Tampering with Evidence: Not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Regular Reporting: Reporting to the Kalwa Police Station once every three months.
Jurisdiction: Not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission.
Residential Address: Providing his current residential address to the authorities.
“In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant bail underscores the complexities surrounding consent and false promises of marriage. By allowing the trial to determine whether consent was vitiated, the court highlights the importance of nuanced evaluation in such cases. This ruling has significant implications for the legal discourse on consent, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of evidence and context. Ultimately, this decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights while ensuring justice is served.”
