"...what is glaring or staring at this Court is that in the 21 st century, still in the name of caste and creed, social differentiation is being created," the Madhya Pradesh High Court remarked as it denied bail to a man who has been accused of establishing physical relation on a false promise of marriage.
The bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal denied him bail on the ground that it was not in the of justice so also the interest of a vulnerable witness to grant him bail as the Court found that it was not the correct stage to extend him the benefit of bail.
The case in brief and the arguments advanced
Essentially, one Naresh Rajoriya (Accused) was seeking bail in connection with a Crime registered against him under Sections 376, 506 of IPC. His counsel submitted that the applicant is a differently abled person working as a Canteen Attendant in the Ministry of Defence and that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.
Defending his client, the Counsel for the accused argued that the allegation against the applicant was only with regard to a false promise of marriage, however, it was on record that they both had stayed in the hotel on seven occasions between 2020 and 2021.
Further, he argued that the prosecutrix herself had refused to marry the applicant initially, and later on, she had sent a message that the applicant may marry any other girl. It was also submitted that since the complainant was 5 years older than the applicant in age, and they both belong to different castes, the marriage couldn't take place.
On the other hand, the Counsels for the state and the complainant argued before the Court that on the last date, the applicant had sought time to seek instructions because it was informed that the applicant was willing to marry, however, because of family pressure, he had to wriggle out.
It was also submitted that both the applicant and the complainant are handicapped and the applicant had approached the complainant with a promise of marriage and had enticed her into a physical relationship, however, later on, since he got a job with the defence establishment, he refused to marry her.
However, the Counsel for the applicant did submit that though the sister of the applicant was willing to perform the marriage of the applicant with the complainant, however, since the father of the applicant had refused his consent because of the age difference and caste difference, the marriage ws not possible.
Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the applicant always had knowledge about the age difference between him and the complainant and that there was also conscious knowledge of differences in the caste.
However, the Court further observed, that the only uniting factor was emotional bonding on account of both being differently abled and there was a promise on part of the applicant but later on, as soon as he could get a job, he changed his attitude.
"In any case, apart from these facts what is glaring or staring at this Court is that in the 21 st century, still in the name of caste and creed, social differentiation is being created. It is not a case of suppression of caste of the prosecutrix, which was discovered later on," the Court remarked.
Consequently, noting that in any case, the prosecutrix has not been examined in the Court of law and she is a vulnerable witness, the Court denied him bail as it remarked thus:
"If the applicant is enlarged on bail then there is the possibility of witnesses being tampered with. Therefore, having due respect to the judgments cited by Shri Ankit Saxena, I am of the opinion that to secure the interest of justice and also the interest of a vulnerable witness, this is not the correct stage to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant."
Case title - NARESH RAJORIYA v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 187