( Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan )
The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath was hearing an appeal against the Rajasthan High Court decision wherein the court had dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the appellant under sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 of IPC. The HC, in its order, had said, “It is an admitted position that petitioner had made the relation with the complainant by promising to marry her and due to their relation, one female child So, looking to the gravity of the offense, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.”
In the case of Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan.
The petitioner’s attorney, who represented the appellant before the SC, said that the complainant, although having previously been married, had been “willingly” living with him and that he had been wrongfully implicated in the case in which the complaint had been brought against him. The petitioner didn’t make any marriage-related pledges at the same time. The complainant, meanwhile, is divorced and only lived with the accused because he had promised to marry her, according to the public prosecutor and the complainant’s attorney.
The complainant had been dating the appellant for more than four years since she was 21 years old, according to the Supreme Court bench. The complainant had been voluntarily cohabitating with the appellant, the court claimed. Because of this, the Supreme Court ruled that if a relationship is having trouble, it cannot be used as justification for filing an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The individual was given anticipatory bail by the court, which overturned the High Court’s decision and authorized the appeal. The court did clarify, however, that the aforementioned decision only relates to the bail plea and that ongoing inquiry should not be affected by it.
Advocate Khanak Sharma