Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of Delhi High Court while observing that blogs or posts put up by the complainant woman on social media appear to reflect that she had reservations about the institution of marriage and supported the idea of live-in relationship, and suspended the sentence of an accused for committing rape upon the false promise of marriage.

It was argued by the advocate for the convict that he was already married and was known to the complainant and they had met via an online dating app, Tinder which is known for casual dating. He further added that her blog posts also showed that she herself did not believe in the idea of marriage. 

It was observed "It may be reiterated that the Appellate Court, at the stage of suspension of sentence and release on bail till the disposal of the appeal, has to examine if there is any patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the conviction prima facie erroneous. The evidence is not to be re-assessed or re-analyzed to suspend the execution of the sentence. The detailed observations on the merits of the case are not called for, at this stage lest it prejudices the case of the petitioner but the matter has to be seen in the light of settled principles of law. 

The Court further observed that "Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it may be observed that the detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant pointing out that the factum of the marriage of the appellant was already known to the prosecutrix/complainant. Further, the blogs/posts on the social media put by the complainant/prosecutrix appear to reflect that she had reservations about institution of marriage and supported the idea of live-in relationship. The aforesaid observations need to be kept in perspective since the blogs had been made prior to the alleged reporting of the incident. It appears that sexual encounter initially at Hyatt Hotel on 26.05.2015 was completely voluntary. The evidence relating to incident dated 10.06.2015 also requires a deeper scrutiny in the light of defence evidence led on behalf of the appellant. It may be preposterous to make observations in detail at this stage but the evidence led by the appellant does require consideration. At this stage, even if the evidence is not to be re-assessed or re-analyzed for the purpose of execution of sentence but the infirmities which have been pointed out on record need consideration. It may also be noticed that the disposal of the appeal is likely to take some time. "

Case Detilas:-

CRL.M.(BAIL) 1044/2022 in CRL.A. 416/2022
ASHISH WINDWANI ..... Appellant
versus
STATE (NCT OFDELHI)