The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a rape accused on the condition that he marries the victim within three months. The court’s decision has sparked debate as it remains unclear if the victim’s consent was considered.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court gave bail to a man accused of rape, with a condition that he must marry the victim within three months after being released from jail.
Justice Krishan Pahal made this decision on February 20. The accused, a 26-year-old man, told the court that he-
“As a bonafide person, is ready to take care of the victim as his wedded wife”.
The court mentioned in the bail conditions,
“The applicant shall marry the victim within a period of three months of his release from jail.”
This condition was set while approving his release. However, the court’s order does not explain why this condition was added or whether the victim’s opinion was considered before making this decision.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects BJP Leader Sunil Soren’s Bail in Rape Case: “Must Face Arrest”
The accused, Naresh Meena alias Narsaram Meena, was arrested in September 2024 after a case was filed by the Agra Police. The case was registered under Section 376 (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act at Khandauli Police Station in Agra.
According to the prosecution, Meena tricked the victim by promising to help her get a job in the Uttar Pradesh Police. He then took Rs 9 lakh from her, sexually assaulted her, and later shared an obscene video of her on social media.
During the bail hearing, Meena’s lawyer claimed that the allegations were false and pointed out that there was a four-month delay in filing the FIR.
The court noted that the State failed to present any special reasons that could justify denying bail to the accused.
“It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.”
The court also considered that Meena did not have any past criminal record and followed the legal principle that-
“Bail is a rule, jail as an exception.”
“The well-known principle of ‘Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty,’ gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception,”
-the judge said.
The accused was represented by Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, while Advocate AK Shukla appeared for the State.
CASE TITLE:
Naresh Meena @ Narsaram Meena v State of UP.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
