Girl sharing friendly relationship cannot be construed as consent to establish physical relationship with her: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court last week held that merely because a girl is friendly with a boy, doesn't allow him to take her for granted and construe it as a consent to establish sexual relationship with her [Ashish Chakor vs State of Maharashtra]. .Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre while denying anticipatory bail to a man, booked for raping a girl on the pretext of marriage, said that just because a girl is friendly doesn't give licence to the boy to force himself upon her."Merely sharing friendly relationship with a girl do not permit a boy to take her for granted and construe it as her consent to establish physical relationship. In today’s society when a man and woman are working together, it is quite possible that proximity may develop between them, being either mentally compatible or confiding in each other as friends, ignoring the gender, since friendship is not gender based. However, this friendship with the person of fairer sex, does not confer a licence upon a man to force himself upon her, when she specifically refuse copulation," Justice Dangre observed in her orders passed on June 24.In a strongly worded order, Justice Dangre said that every woman always expects "respect" in any relationship..The judge was seized of an application filed by one Ashish Chakor seeking anticipatory bail on the apprehension that he would be arrested in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against him by the complainant at Mumbai's MHB Colony Police station.As per the FIR, the complainant girl and the applicant both were friends. In 2019, the duo visited a common friend's house, where the applicant forced himself on her. She opposed his act but he expressed his liking for her and promised that he would marry her soon. The physical relationship continued until the girl became pregnant and confronted the applicant.He, however, refused to marry her or to take responsibility for pregnancy and instead alleged infidelity. Despite this, he had sexual intercourse with her twice before the FIR was lodged..Justice Dangre noted that the applicant had made a promise to marry her and it was only after such a promise that she agreed to the sexual act."Here is the applicant, who is accused of maintaining sexual relationship on the pretext of marriage, but when the complainant conceived, he walked out alleging that pregnancy carried by her is on account of her relationship with other persons. The accusations faced by the applicant definitely require a thorough investigation to ascertain the version of the prosecutrix that she was forced to give her consent for sex," the judge said.In this view of the same, the judge dismissed the anticipatory bail application..Advocate Dr. Samarth Karmarkar along with advocate Haresh RB and Karmarkar & Associates appeared for the applicant.Additional Public Prosecutor Anamika Malhotra represented the state..[Read Order]