Group-6

Gopika Bansal, Aryan Singh, Yash Gupta, Navika Bhandari, Divya Rathod

BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,

AT EAST CHAMPARAN

IN THE MATTER OF

State

VS

Mr. Amarendra Kumar

FIR Number: 854118

Under Section: 420 and 376 IPC

Police Station: Nagar Thana Motihaari, ASI Arati Thakur Police Station

APPLICATION U/S 438 CRPC FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON BEHALF

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:

1. That the prosecution case in brief is that the accused, Amarendra Kumar, allured Punita
Kumari, a +2 student, into having sexual intercourse with him and continued taking
advantage of her in a physical relationship with a pretext of marrying her eventually.
Kumari further alleged that Amarendra has stopped visiting her abode since the past
one month, and that he has refused to marry her even after her multiple attempts at
convincing him. Furthermore, she claimed that the accused had kept her as his wife and
used to have long conversations with her. It was also argued that Amarendra intended
to marry another person in order to receive a dowry which Kumari couldn’t possibly
provide, and her refusal to meet their demands and lodge a complaint could have serious
repercussions.

1
2. That no other regular or anticipatory petition has ever been filed earlier in this learned
court or before Ld. Sessions Judge Motihari or any other higher court on behalf of the
petitioner.
3. That the accused is innocent and has committed no crime as alleged and has been falsely
charged with the offences under Section 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. That this is purely a case of defamation as Amarendra’s refusal to marry Punita
prompted her to file those charges against him as she felt the need to seek some respite.
5. That the accused has no previous criminal records.
6. Section 420 of the IPC suggests that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy
the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine. Amarendra can’t be charged under this pretext as he never
promised anything, nor did he allure her into having sexual intercourse with him.
7. The accused should also be acquitted from charges under Section 376. This section
states that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be
less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not
under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. By
referring to one of the judgements made by the Orissa High Court last year, Amarendra
could make a good case for himself. The court in that case ruled that indulging in sexual
intercourse on the false pretext of marriage does not amount to rape. Justice SK
Panigrahi said holding that the false promise of marriage amounts to rape appears to be
fallacious as the ingredients of rape codified under Section 375 of the IPC do not cover
it.
8. In addition, it is completely disproportionate to enforce the strict rigors/presumptions
in the evidentiary laws passed by the legislature for the offense of rape - by which it
mainly meant rape by force - and the rule laid down by the Supreme Court on the

2
 absolute reliability of the prosecutor's argument in cases of false commitment to
marry. These factors are enough to dispute the constitutionality on their own.
9. It is in this light of the above arguments that in the case of Uday v. State of
Karnataka - which was the first in the line of judgments - the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that a false promise of marriage could not fall within the limits of 'misconception
of reality' – held in the following words:
“It therefore appears that the consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view
that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with
whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date,
cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact
within the meaning of the Code…”
10. Similarly, in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of Bihar, the court mentioned that the
consent given by the victim to sexual intercourse with a person whom she is deeply in
love on a promise to marry her in future, cannot be said to a misconception of fact under
Section 90 of IPC and hence, the accused will not be convicted for rape within the
meaning of Section 375.
11. That in the case of Varthya Shanker v. State of Telangana, the act of the accused
which is complained of would not at all attract any charges of criminal offences. It was
established that in no way does a vow to marry attract the crime pursuant to IPC Section
420. Even if the arguments of the plaintiff are valid, mere failure to keep the promise
would not fall within the definition of cheating.
12. That on this issue, the law can deliver rescue to the accused. The bail should be passed
on as the case is based on prime facie and numerous details require a thorough trail.
13. That the accused is a respectable person and also undertakes to face its trial.
14. That the accused is ready to give sureties for your honour’s satisfaction.

It is as such prayed that your

And for this the petitioner shall ever pray.