Date of the order:- 05.12.2024
This case revolves around a live-in relationship that turned into criminal proceeding under Sections 376 (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The woman, alleged that the applicant (man), promised marriage but later refused, leading to an FIR. The applicant was in judicial custody since 16.09.2024.
1.Live-in Relationship & Consent in Rape Cases:
– The Supreme Court has held in multiple judgments that false promises of marriage can amount to rape if the promise was deceitful from the beginning.
– However, in cases where both parties were in a long-term consensual relationship, courts often assess whether the woman had an independent understanding of the situation.
2. Bail Considerations in Rape Allegations:
– The severity of the offense is a key factor in deciding bail. Courts are generally cautious in granting bail in sexual offenses unless exceptional circumstances exist.
– In this case, the willingness of both parties to marry and the presence of their infant child played a significant role in influencing the court’s decision.
3. Rehabilitation vs. Retribution:
– The court took a reformative approach rather than a purely punitive one.
– Emphasis was placed on the need for a stable family environment for the child rather than prolonged incarceration of the applicant.
– The Court ensured that the woman concerns about financial and social security were addressed by directing the man/applicant to:
– Marry her under the Special Marriage Act within seven days of release.
– Deposit ₹5 lakh as a Fixed Deposit for the infant child’s future.
– Ensure a stable living arrangement for woman and child.
– The conditions imposed reflect a balancing act between justice and reconciliation, aligning with the Supreme Court’s view that marriage should not be forced, but mutual settlement in such cases can be encouraged if voluntarily agreed upon.
– The decision raises questions about precedent: Should courts encourage marriage in cases involving rape allegations?
– While the woman consented, there is an underlying concern that financial or social pressures may have influenced her decision.
– The conditions imposed (marriage + financial deposit) could be seen as civil remedies in a criminal case, which may set a debatable precedent.
This case highlights the evolving judicial stance on live-in relationships, promises of marriage, and the intersection of criminal and family law. While the bail order promotes restorative justice, it also raises critical questions about the role of courts in enforcing social settlements in criminal proceedings.
Edited by
Neeraj Gogia Adovocate
9891800100