“The concept of live-in relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry a woman or number of women even after a live-in relationship, but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup.”

In a bail application filed by a man in an FIR registered under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 61(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) and Section 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) for raping his minor live-in girlfriend on the false pretext of marriage, the Single Judge Bench allowed the application, holding that the case was fit for grant of bail considering the nature of the case, evidence, overcrowding in jails, and the mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Background

In the present case, it was alleged that the accused committed rape against the minor victim on the false promise of marriage. Accordingly, a complaint was filed, and the accused was arrested.

Analysis

After hearing the rival contention, the Court remarked that ever since the legalisation of live-in relationships by the Supreme Court, the Court was fed up with such cases as a number of these cases were being filed because the concept of live-in relationships was against the settled law in the Indian middle-class Society.

The Court noted that, “The concept of live-in relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry a woman or number of women even after a live-in relationship, but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup.”

The Court further commented that this concept had attracted the young generation significantly, but its after-effects were evident in cases like the present one.

Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, and submissions of the parties, the Court found force in the contentions of the accused. Further considering the large mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution and overcrowding in jails, the Court considered the case fit for grant of bail. In this regard, the Court referred to Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22 and Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to prescribed conditions.