The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a man who raped a woman after promising to marry her and thereafter pressuring the woman to change her religion as a condition to marry her.
Justice Om Prakash Tripathi, who was hearing the case, rejected the bail application of Farhan Ahmad aka Sanu of Gorakhpur. Justice Tripathi said that the allegation against the accused was serious and he cannot, therefore, be released on bail.
The victim said that the accused committed rape on her by establishing physical relations on the pretext of a false promise to marry, the applicant-accused later pressurised her to covert to Islam and if she doesn’t convert then he will not marry her. The victim also said that she felt that there is a threat to her life, therefore, she decided to file a First Information Report (FIR).
The counsellor of the accused argued that the applicant-accused was falsely implicated and this was the case of consensual relationship as both the victim and the applicant were adults.
The counsellor further argued that there is no sign of external or internal injury on the body of the victim and even the doctor didn’t give any opinion on rape according to the medical report of the victim.
However, the counsellor appearing for the state government, said that “sexual relationship with the victim on the pretext of false promise of marriage would attract the offence of rape”.
“It is a heinous crime against a society and has a long effect on the mind of victims. The victim has to go through a serious emotional trauma and physical suffering. Sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of false promise to marry is, and ought to be an offence of rape under the penal provisions effect on the mind of the victim.”
The court headed by Justice Om Prakash Tripathi observed the facts and circumstances of the case and refused to grant bail to the applicant-accused.
The order was passed in a bail plea moved by the applicant-accused, Farhan Ahmad. He is booked under Sections 376 (Punishment for rape), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC 1860 and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2020.
The trial court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Under this section, if an accused had no intention to marry the victim and that he had malafide motives and had made false promise of marriage to the victim only to satisfy his lust by establishing physical relationship with victim, then he is rightly accused. Because, the victim would not have given the consent to have a physical relationship if the accused hadn’t promised to marry her. The consent given by the victim was on misconception of the fact. The case is of cheating and deception.
The Supreme Court of India has also observed that rape is the most heinous crime of the world.
“While a murderer destroys the physical frame of the victim, a rapist degraded and defiles the soul of a helpless female. Rape reduces woman to an animal, as it shakes the very core of her life. By no means can a rape victim be called an accomplice. Rape leaves a permanent scar on the life of the victim. Rape is a crime against the entire society and violates the human rights of the victim. Rape offends the dignity and esteem of a woman.”
The Court, directed the trial court to complete the trial in the case within a period of one year.