Read Time: 04 minutes
The victim, who was a married woman, had gotten pregnant during the live-in relationship and alleged that later the accused refused to marry her.
While dealing with a bail application in a false promise of marriage and rape case, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the case at hand was a disastrous consequence of live-in relationships.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha said, "It is difficult for a woman to live alone after breaking of live-in relationship. The Indian Society at large does not recognize such relation-ship as acceptable. The woman, therefore, is left with no option but to lodge first information report against her live-in partner, like in the present case".
The bail application was moved by a man against whom a woman had filed a case under Sections 376 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim had alleged that the accused lived with her in a live-in relationship for 1 & 1/2 years during which she got pregnant, however, he later refused to marry her.
The victim had been earlier married to another man and had two children from that marriage. The woman claimed that it was the accused man who had sent her obscene photographs to her husband who, as a result, had refused to keep her with him either.
Pressing for the accused's release on bail, his counsel argued that the victim was a major and had willingly entered into live-in relation-ship with the accused.
She was capable of understanding the consequence of such a relationship and there is no allegation that the relationship started with the promise of marriage, he asserted.
Therefore, the counsel while contending that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case, sought bail. Moreover, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.
Court found force in the arguments put forth by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of the trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of the accused side; accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial; and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution along with other factors, Court allowed the man's bail plea.
Case Title: Aditya Raj Verma v. State Of U.P. . And Another
Please Login or Register
