The Delhi High Court has declined the anticipatory bail plea of a woman who has been accused of threatening a man with rape charges if her demand of ₹2 lakh, a mobile phone, and a TV were not met.
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. “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...,” the court said.
The court also highlighted that the woman is accused of an offence under Section 328 IPC, which is a serious offence. “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,” the court said.
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.
The FIR, in the present case, stated that the complainant had gone to the house of a man known to him, who introduced the accused woman to the complainant as his girlfriend.
It is claimed that after consuming a soft drink, the complainant started feeling dizzy and became unconscious.
After regaining consciousness, the complainant said he was shocked to see the 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 ₹2 lakh in cash from him.
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.
“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 High Court said.
“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 added.
It 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”.
The probability of the woman and her boyfriend threatening the complainant also could not be ruled out at this stage, the court said while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea.
