Inter-Faith Couple : Supreme Court Grants Bail To Man In Rape & Kidnapping Case After Taking Note Of Live-In Relationship

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted bail to a man in an inter-faith relationship, who was in custody for over nine months in a case filed by the woman's parents alleging rape and kidnapping.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia decided to grant bail after noting that the couple had been in a live-in relationship since August 2022. They had also filed a joint petition for police protection and the petitioner had already been in custody for 9 months. Considering these facts, the Court decided to grant bail.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The petitioner and the alleged victim were in a romantic relationship and wanted to marry each other. The girl belonged to a Hindu family, as such her family was against a relationship with a Muslim. The couple eloped and entered into a live-in-relationship agreement on 25.08.2022.

On the very next date, her father filed a missing persons report.

The couple immediately approached the high court filing a petition for police protection anticipating a threat from the family. The High Court ordered the state to grant protection to the couple in an interim order.

The appellant contended that her family took her away forcibly on the day of the hearing and then lodged FIR against the petitioner, pursuant to which he was arrested.

A case was registered against him under sections 366,376,384,323,328,120- B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. He moved an application for bail which was rejected by both the subordinate court as well as the high court.

INTERFAITH COUPLE WERE IN A CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP

The petitioner argued that no grounds were provided for the cancellation of his bail application. No CCTV footage was found in Hotel Bani Thani where it was alleged that he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.

He submitted that there was a live-in relationship agreement and they were in a consensual relationship.

He contended that the girl changed her statement during the interrogation out of a threat from her family. Lastly, he had no criminal antecedents and he was been incarcerated for 9 months in jail without any proof.

AoR Namit Saxena for petitioner and AoR Milind Saxena for Respondent