Not rape? HC grants bail to man who had sex on false pretence | delhi | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 17, 2017-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Not rape? HC grants bail to man who had sex on false pretence

delhi Updated: Nov 08, 2009 02:36 IST
Harish V Nair
Harish V Nair
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Delhi High Court has observed it is up to a woman to maintain her chastity.

The court said so while granting anticipatory bail to Arif Iqbal (22), who repeatedly had sex over a year with a girl on the false promise of marriage.

Iqbal had feared arrest as the girl had lodged an FIR charging him with rape. The high court’s order has the potential to raise the hackles of women’s groups. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that consent for sex obtained through false promise of marriage amounts to rape.

Justice Kailash Gambhir wrote in the eight page order: “Undoubtedly it is the responsibility — moral and ethical — both on the part of men not to exploit any woman by extending false promise or through devious acts to force or induce the girl for sexual relationship. But ultimately it is woman herself who is the protector of her own body.”

“It is the prime responsibility of woman in the relationship to protect her honour and modesty. A woman should not throw herself to a man and indulge in promiscuity, becoming a source of hilarity. It is for her to maintain her purity and chastity,” said the judge.

The court drew the inference that sex was consensual from letters allegedly written by the girl between 2007 and 2008 wishing to “come close” to Iqbal and even “have a child”.

Iqbal said they had sex at the girl’s house after her family dozed off, after consuming tea they had laced with intoxicating pills. The court said it is to be noted the physical relation took place not at any strange place but at the residence of the girl after she herself drugged her parents.

Public prosecutor Sanjay Lao opposed the bail plea saying the girl’s consent for sex was not on her own will but under misconception of marriage and therefore it amounted to rape. But the court rejected it saying the girl should not have allowed the accused to have sex with her on a “mere promise of marriage”.

Justice Gambhir upheld the argument of Iqbal’s counsel that the girl, aged 23, was expected to be mature enough to understand the consequences of the act in case the accused went back on his promise.

<