BAIL APPLN./2824/2024 of VIPIN KARPENTER THROUGH ITS WIFE RANJANA KARPENTER Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAIL APPLN. 2824/2024 & CRL.M.A. 23713/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL)1326/2024 (for interim bail)

VIPINKARPENTERTHROUGHITSWIFERANJANAKARPENTER.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. R. N. Pareek, Advocate.

versus

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State withSI Priya, P.S.: Shakarpur.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANIO R R15.01.2025

By way of the present petition filed under section 439 read withsection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitionerseeks regular bail in case FIR no.100/2023 dated 03.02.2023 registeredunder section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) at P.S.:Shakarpur, New Delhi.

2.As recorded in order dated 09.08.2024, since the petition was filed after01.07.2024 and there was no earlier petition for the same relief pendingbefore the court, the petition was treated as one under section 483 readwith section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(‘BNSS’), by reason of section 531 BNSS, viz. the repeal and savingsclause in the BNSS.

3.Notice on this petition was issued on 09.08.2024.

4.Status Report dated 17.09.2024 has been filed in the matter.

5.Nominal Roll dated 18.09.2024 has also been received from the JailSuperintendent.Superintendent.

6.Mr. R. N. Pareek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits,that the essence of the allegations under section 376 IPC is that thepetitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant/prosecutrix on ‘false promise’ of marriage.that the essence of the allegations under section 376 IPC is that thepetitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant/prosecutrix on ‘false promise’ of marriage.

7.Mr. Pareek draws attention to para 14 of the status report filed by theInvestigating Officer (I.O.), which reads as follows :Investigating Officer (I.O.), which reads as follows :

“14. During the course of investigation, the wife of thePetitioner was interrogated and she disclosed that marriagebetween her and the Petitioner was solemnized in 2015 and twochildren were born to them. She further disclosed that she wascohabiting with the Petitioner at Shakarpur since April 2021. Shefurther disclosed that the Petitioner brought the victim ‘K’ to theirhome in her presence and that the Petitioner introduced the victim‘K’ as friend. She further disclosed that the victim ‘K’ visited theirhouse around 3-4 times in her presence.”between her and the Petitioner was solemnized in 2015 and twochildren were born to them. She further disclosed that she wascohabiting with the Petitioner at Shakarpur since April 2021. Shefurther disclosed that the Petitioner brought the victim ‘K’ to theirhome in her presence and that the Petitioner introduced the victim‘K’ as friend. She further disclosed that the victim ‘K’ visited theirhouse around 3-4 times in her presence.”

(emphasis supplied)8.Counsel submits therefore, that the prosecutrix had visited thepetitioner’s house multiple times; had met the petitioner’s wife; andwas therefore well and fully aware that the petitioner was married andwas residing with his wife and two children.petitioner’s house multiple times; had met the petitioner’s wife; andwas therefore well and fully aware that the petitioner was married andwas residing with his wife and two children.

9.In the circumstances, it is argued that the allegation that the petitionerengaged in physical relations with the prosecutrix on false promise ofmarriage, is wholly misconceived and unbelievable.engaged in physical relations with the prosecutrix on false promise ofmarriage, is wholly misconceived and unbelievable.

10. Counsel also draws attention to the observations of the Supreme Courtin Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,[1]inter-

alia to the following extracts :

“14. In the present case, the “misconception of fact” allegedby the complainant is the appellant’s promise to marry her.Specifically in the context of promise to marry, this Court hasobserved that there is distinction between false promise given onthe understanding by the maker that it will be broken, and thebreach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequentlynotfulfilled.In AnuragSoni v. StateofChhattisgarh [AnuragSoni v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 13 SCC 1 : 2019 SCC OnLine

SC 509] , this Court held : (SCC para 12)

“12. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisionswould be that if it is established and proved that from theinception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix tomarry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrixgave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance bythe accused that he would marry her, such consent can be saidto be consent obtained on misconception of fact as per Section90 IPCand, in such case, such consent would not excuse theoffender and such an offender can be said to have committed therape as defined under Sections 375 IPC and can be convicted forthe offence under Section 376 IPC.”

Similar observations were made by this Court in Deepak

Gulati v. State of Haryana [Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,(2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 660] (Deepak Gulati) :(SCC p. 682, para 21)

“21. … There is distinction between the mere breach ofa promise, and not fulfilling false promise. Thus, the court mustexamine whether there was made, at an early stage falsepromise of marriage by the accused;”

* * * * *

“18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from theabove cases, the “consent” of woman with respect to Section 375must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards theproposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a“misconception of fact” arising out of promise to marry, two

1 (2019) 9 SCC 608

propositions must be established. The promise of marriage musthave been false promise, given in bad faith and with no intentionof being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itselfmust be of immediate relevance, or bear direct nexus to the'”womans decision to engage in the sexual act.

(emphasis supplied)11. Counsel submits that in the present case there is in fact no falsepromise of marriage at all, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was fully awarethat the petitioner was married man.promise of marriage at all, inasmuch as the prosecutrix was fully awarethat the petitioner was married man.

12. In this backdrop, it is further pointed-out that the deposition of theprosecutrix has been concluded before the learned trial court; thepetitioner has served almost 02 years in judicial custody as anundertrial; his jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’; and that he has noother criminal involvements; and that therefore, he be enlarged onregular bail.prosecutrix has been concluded before the learned trial court; thepetitioner has served almost 02 years in judicial custody as anundertrial; his jail conduct has been ‘satisfactory’; and that he has noother criminal involvements; and that therefore, he be enlarged onregular bail.

13. On the other hand, Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP appearing for the Stateopposes the grant of bail, submitting that the petitioner had put-out afake profile of himself on the matrimonial website ‘Jeevansathi.com’,representing that he was not married, with the aim and intent of alluringinnocent women, to engage with them on the pretext of marriage. It isargued that the prosecutrix fell into that trap and it is clear that thepetitioner had sexual intercourse with her on false promise ofmarriage.opposes the grant of bail, submitting that the petitioner had put-out afake profile of himself on the matrimonial website ‘Jeevansathi.com’,representing that he was not married, with the aim and intent of alluringinnocent women, to engage with them on the pretext of marriage. It isargued that the prosecutrix fell into that trap and it is clear that thepetitioner had sexual intercourse with her on false promise ofmarriage.

14. Upon conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, especiallythe fact (i) that Status Report dated 17.09.2024 filed by the prosecutionitself narrates, that as per the version of the petitioner’s wife, theprosecutrix had visited their home and she had been introduced to thewife as the petitioner’s friend; and considering that the petitioner hasthe fact (i) that Status Report dated 17.09.2024 filed by the prosecutionitself narrates, that as per the version of the petitioner’s wife, theprosecutrix had visited their home and she had been introduced to thewife as the petitioner’s friend; and considering that the petitioner has

already undergone almost 2 years in judicial custody as an undertrial,this court is persuaded to grant to the petitioner – Vipin Karpenter s/oBalu Singh – regular bail pending trial subject to the following termsand conditions :

14.1. The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 01 surety inthe like amount from family member, to the satisfaction of thelearned trial court;Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty-five Thousand Only) with 01 surety inthe like amount from family member, to the satisfaction of thelearned trial court;

14.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer/S.H.O.,P.S.: Shakarpur, Delhi cellphone number on which thepetitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that thenumber is kept active and switched-on at all times;P.S.: Shakarpur, Delhi cellphone number on which thepetitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that thenumber is kept active and switched-on at all times;

14.3. If the petitioner has passport, he shall surrender the same to thelearned trial court and shall not travel out of the country withoutprior permission of the learned trial court;learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country withoutprior permission of the learned trial court;

14.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer anyinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. Thepetitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulgein any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudicethe proceedings in the pending trial; andinducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecutionwitnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. Thepetitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulgein any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudicethe proceedings in the pending trial; and

14.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details,the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing.

15. Since the petitioner is facing trial and is therefore appearing before thelearned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered necessary toimpose reporting requirement as condition of regular bail.learned trial court from time-to-time, it is not considered necessary toimpose reporting requirement as condition of regular bail.

16. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion onthe merits of the pending matter.the merits of the pending matter.

17. copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendentforthwith.forthwith.

18. The petition stands disposed-of.

19. Other pending applications, if any, are also disposed-of.

JANUARY 15, 2025

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J