Delhi High Court Refuses Bail To Woman Who Threatened Man With False Rape Case If Her Demands Were Not Met

In a rare judgement, the Delhi High Court has declined anticipatory bail plea of a woman who has been accused of threatening a man with rape charges – if he did not fulfil her demand of Rs 2 lakh, a mobile phone, and a Television set.

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the investigation was at a nascent stage and it was yet to be ascertained if the woman was involved in any other cases. He quoted,

The petitioner’s [woman] voice sample has to be taken and the investigation has also to be conducted as to whether there are any other cases in which the petitioner is involved.

Section 328 IPC

The court also highlighted that the woman is accused of an offence under Section 328 IPC, which is serious in nature. The court said,

This court feels that this is not a fit case where the petitioner should be granted bail in the event of arrest. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Section 328 IPC provides for punishment of upto 10 years for administration of intoxicating drug with intent to cause hurt or commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence.

Case:

The complainant Rishabh Jain (victim) had gone to the house of one Nikhil Bhattal, a man known to him, who introduced the accused woman Ishu (also known as Bobby), to the complainant as his girlfriend. It is claimed that after consuming a soft drink, the complainant started feeling dizzy and became unconscious.

When the complainant man regained his consciousness, he was shocked to see the accused woman with him in an objectionable position.

The complainant then narrated the incident to his friend. However, his friend and the woman started demanding a mobile phone, a TV and Rs 2 lakh in cash from him.

It is stated that after the incident the complainant was called more than 25 times for payment of money. The complainant also produced various voice recordings to substantiate that the petitioner Ishu and Nikhil Bhattal were demanding money from Jain.

The complainant said he was threatened that if the demands were not met the woman would file a case of rape against him. Later, the woman filed a case of rape against him.

Delhi High Court

Calling this as a clear case of Honey Trap, the Delhi High Court said,

A reading of the FIR shows that this is a case of honey trap. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has threatened the complainant and has demanded money.

The court added,

Material on record shows that only when the complainant filed the instant FIR, the petitioner filed her complaint under Section 376 [rape] of the IPC against the complainant herein.

The court also noted that there was “some justification” in the contention of the public prosecutor that the conduct of the woman “does show that there is a likelihood of her fleeing from justice and that she would not cooperate with the investigation”.

While rejecting the anticipatory bail for the accused woman, the Delhi High Court said that the probability of the woman and her boyfriend threatening the complainant also could not be ruled out at this stage.

ALSO READ –

READ ORDER | False Rape Cases Cannot Be Made To Settle Personal Scores; Need To Be Dealt With Iron Hand

Court Grants Rs 1 Lakh Compensation To Man Who Spent More Than 6-Years In Jail For False POCSO Case

Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Woman Booked For Alleged Sexual Assault On 6-Year Old Boy

Haryana Court Acquits Man, Disabled Brother, In Motivated False Molestation Case

Men’s Lives Matter | Law Students Move Supreme Court Seeking Gender Neutral Rape, 498A & Sexual Harassment Laws

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below 

Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below