Read Time: 07 minutes
Court noted that the prosecutrix had a "guru-shishya" (teacher-student) relationship with the applicant and was well aware of the implications of being in a relationship with a student who was not of legal marriage age
The Delhi High Court has recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old student accused of raping his 35-year-old professor under the false pretext of marriage.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that the prosecutrix (professor) was a mature woman around the age of 35, and she had been in a relationship with the accused when he was just 20 years old.
Court further emphasized that the professor was previously married and undergoing a divorce when granting pre-arrest bail to the accused student.
Court, in its order dated October 31, stated, "Prima facie, it seems that she was in a relationship with the applicant (accused) out of choice and desire rather than out of compulsion or force. More so, when she, out of her own sweet will, voluntarily chose to proceed with the applicant with open eyes, open ears, and an open mind."
According to the first information report (FIR), the woman met the accused in February 2022 at the college where he was a student. She alleged that in May 2022, during a work trip to Manali, they had a small wedding ceremony at a temple, with the boy promising a legal marriage in the future.
The woman also claimed that on June 4, 2022, she met the student's family at his home, and they expressed no objections to their marriage. However, after learning about her pregnancy in April 2023, the accused and his family pressured her to undergo an abortion, which he facilitated with a pill.
In June 2023, the woman discovered that she was pregnant again, and on July 1, 2023, the accused took Rs. 2,50,000 from her and left. The next day, he scheduled an appointment for the prosecutrix with a gynecologist in Gurgaon, which turned out to be their last interaction.
The counsel for the accused argued that his client had no intention to harm or threaten the prosecutrix. He contended that the prosecutrix had shown her intent to intimidate the accused and his family on multiple occasions. Moreover, he argued that the FIR was filed solely to harass the accused, a 20-year-old student at the college where the prosecutrix worked as a professor.
On the contrary, the counsel for the state opposed the bail plea due to the gravity of the alleged offences.
Court acknowledged the seriousness of rape cases, emphasizing the need to recognize the severity of the crime and the corresponding punishment. However, the Court also emphasized the necessity of considering the specific details, circumstances, background, and overall context of the case.
Court noted that the prosecutrix had a "guru-shishya" (teacher-student) relationship with the applicant and was well aware of the implications of being in a relationship with a student who was not of legal marriage age.
Court observed that the student had established a prima facie case for the grant of anticipatory bail. It also rejected the argument that the accused was a "proclaimed offender," pointing out that he was only a "proclaimed person" avoiding arrest under Section 82 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had not been declared a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82 (4) of the CrPC.
Conclusively, Court granted anticipatory bail to the student with specific conditions, including the requirement to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 along with one surety of a like amount.
Case Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State
Please Login or Register
