TUSHAR THOMAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.46/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.

(2.) The case of the complaint is that the complainant and the petitioner were friends working in the same company. It is further submitted that the petitioner and complainant used to go for movies, malls and restaurants. It is stated that on certain day, petitioner went to the complainant's house and after having watched a movie and spending time, it is submitted that the petitioner took advantage of the intoxicated state of the complainant and has forced himself on her. It is further submitted that though there was a promise of the petitioner to marry the complainant, subsequently, the petitioner and petitioner's family have deceived the complainant. Accordingly, a complaint has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the complainant and the petitioner were known to each other and the complainant is also sufficiently mature person and is a software engineer. It is further submitted that the question as to whether it was a relationship by consent between the two or the consent to have a physical relationship was obtained only on the basis of a promise to marry is a matter to be established during trial. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors . - 2019 Crl.L.J. 1169. It is further submitted that in light of the facts as made out by the complaint itself, question of commission of offence as made out in the complaint with all ingredients is a matter to be established during trial more so with respect to absence of consent.