[Redacted] v. Peter De Brujin
In the Karnataka High Court
Cri. P. 7128/2014
Before Justice Anand Byrareddy
Decided on February 02, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving a promise to marry after meeting online

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376, 420, 506)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner alleges the offence of rape against the respondent. The respondent belongs to the Netherlands and had contacted the petitioner on the internet. The respondent told the petitioner that he was looking for company. The petitioner responded affirmative and they stayed together for 15 days and had sex with each other.
• She alleges that the respondent had promised to marry her. The petitioner (complainant) had approached the police alleging an offence punishable under Section 506, 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• Meanwhile, the respondent has been granted bail. The petitioner is aggrieved by this granting of the bell.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The learned counsel for the respondent state has submitted that the charge sheet has been filed. Further, the case has been committed to the Sessions Court.

Opinion of the Bench

• The petitioner should have approached the trial court seeking cancellation of bail. The court has exercised its discretion to grant bail even at the initial stage. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the court below and take necessary steps.

Final Decision

• The court dismissed the petition.

As per our guidelines, we have removed certain information that falls under the category of personally identifiable information (PII). This guideline is available here.