The Court ordered that the look-out notice, blue corner notice, and proclamation declaring the appellant a proclaimed offender be kept in abeyance following the grant of anticipatory bail. With these directions, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) accused of rape on the alleged false promise of marriage, in a case filed by a woman advocate who had earlier represented him in his divorce proceedings. The apex court set aside an earlier Bombay High Court order that had rejected the bail plea.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the appeal and directed that, in the event of arrest, the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a cash security of ₹25,000 along with two sureties of the same amount. The Court also directed the appellant to fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation and cautioned him against misusing his liberty, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence.
The case arises from an FIR registered against the appellant under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 69, 318(4), 316(2), and 3(5), along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Challenging the High Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
-
During the hearing, the appellant contended that he is an information technology professional residing overseas, while the complainant is a practising advocate
-
He argued that the allegations were false and motivated, asserting that the relationship between the parties was consensual and had since ended
-
It was further submitted that neither party intended to marry the other and that the criminal proceedings were initiated for reasons that were neither correct nor justified
The State opposed the bail plea, pointing out that coercive measures such as a look-out circular, a blue corner notice, a non-bailable warrant, and proclamation proceedings had already been initiated against the appellant. The complainant supported the State’s submissions, maintaining that the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation.
Taking note of the appellant’s overseas residence, the Supreme Court observed that he is currently based in London and directed that he be informed well in advance of investigation dates to enable him to travel to India if required. The Court clarified that its order would protect the appellant in the event of his return to India for investigation or any other purpose.
