The court, presided over by Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, ruled that no prima facie case warranted the denial of bail, highlighting the prolonged relationship between the parties.
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of raping a 40-year-old government teacher under the alleged pretext of marriage.
The court, presided over by Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, ruled that no prima facie case warranted the denial of bail, highlighting the prolonged relationship between the parties.
Justice Paliwal observed, “Considering the age of the prosecutrix and the duration of the relationship, it cannot be concluded that the appellant established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage. The prosecution’s account indicates that the relationship dates back to 2012.”
The appellant faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He contended that a delay of over two years in filing the FIR raised doubts about the credibility of the allegations.
READ ALSO: Allahabad High Court: Public View Required for Offenses Under SC/ST Act
The appellant further argued that the prosecutrix’s educational background and long-term association negated claims of deception. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), he asserted the absence of a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, making anticipatory bail maintainable.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail unless the Act’s provisions are inapplicable. They argued that the appellant’s conduct required custodial interrogation.
The court clarified that while Section 18 generally precludes anticipatory bail, exceptions exist where no prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is established.
It stated, “Anticipatory bail is usually not maintainable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, but when no prima facie case is evident, it becomes permissible.”
The court also noted deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence regarding the SC/ST Act. It pointed to the prosecutrix’s age, education, and prolonged relationship with the appellant as factors undermining her claim of deception. Furthermore, the considerable delay in filing the FIR weakened the allegations of a false promise of marriage.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
