Read Time: 05 minutes
The differently abled rape accused who filed the bail application is accused of raping the victim under on false promise of marriage and then refusing to wed her on account of caste and age difference.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently refused to grant bail to a differently abled rape accused who allegedly raped the victim on pretext of marriage and later refused to marry on account of caste and age difference.
A bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal noted, "What is glaring or staring at this Court is that in the 21st century, still in the name of caste and creed, social differentiation is being created."
The bail application was filed by a differently abled rape accused in a matter wherein it had been alleged that the accused raped the victim on the pretext of marriage and later refused to marry her.
Advocate Ankit Saxena, appearing for the accused, submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and allegation against the accused was only in regard to "false promise of marriage".
He added that both stayed in hotel on seven occasions between 2020 and 2021 and the prosecutrix herself had refused to marry initially and later sent a message that the applicant can marry any other girl.
It was also argued that there is a difference of age of 5 years between the complainant and the applicant, wherein the complainant is 5 years elder than rape accused and they both belong to different castes.
Advocate Aditya Narayan Gupta, appearing for the State, submitted that on the last date, the applicant's counsel had sought time to seek instructions because it was informed that the applicant is willing to marry but because of family pressure, he had to wriggle out.
Saxena informed the bench that the marriage is not possible since his father refused because of the age difference and caste difference.
The bench noted that "there was conscious knowledge of differences in the caste. The only uniting factor was emotional bonding on account of both being differently able and there was a promise on part of the applicant but later as soon as he could get a job, he changed his attitude".
While refusing to grant bail at this stage, the bench said that to secure the interest of justice so also the interest of a vulnerable witness, this was not the correct stage to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
Case Title: Naresh Rajoriya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Please Login or Register
