“I further undertake that, if the de facto complainant voluntarily chooses to marry me after attaining the legally permissible age, the fact that she belongs to a different caste/community shall not be treated by me as a ground or impediment for the solemnisation of such marriage. I shall respect her decision and shall not permit caste or community considerations to come in the way of such lawful marriage,” the undertaking which was given in the form of an affidavit said.
The case has two different versions. The defence said the accused and the girl, who belonged to the same village, had been in a relationship and that their relationship had become physical. The girl’s counsel, however, alleged that penetrative sexual assault had been committed through force and that the accused avoided her after she informed him about her pregnancy. The high court did not decide these competing allegations while considering the bail plea.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted the accused’s undertaking that caste or community differences would not hinder a lawful marriage if the girl later chose to marry him. (Image enhanced using AI)
Engineering student, schoolgirl
According to the defence submissions recorded in the order, the accused and the girl knew each other because they were from the same village. The defence said the two were in a love relationship and that their relationship subsequently became physical. It was submitted that the accused had promised to marry her, but told her that he would first complete his studies, secure employment and attain the legally permissible marriageable age.
When the girl allegedly told him that she was pregnant, the defence said he informed her that he would approach her parents for marriage after meeting those conditions. According to the defence version, the girl’s parents then lodged the complaint, citing objections from the accused student’s parents to the proposed marriage.
The girl’s side gave the court a different account. Her counsel submitted that the penetrative sexual assault had taken place through compulsion and force. The counsel further alleged that after the girl informed the accused about the pregnancy, he became unavailable, avoided her and disowned the pregnancy, leaving her with no other option but to lodge the complaint.
Story continues below this ad
No marriage before legal age
The undertaking by the student did not seek permission for an immediate marriage. Instead, the accused seeking bail undertook not to compel, induce or influence the girl to enter into marriage before she attained the legally permissible age. He also stated that any future marriage would depend on her free and voluntary choice.
The student’s mother was brought before the court by the police. She told the court that she had no objection to a future marriage between the two after they attained the marriageable age. The order also records that the accused’s father, who is employed in Saudi Arabia, had conveyed that he had no objection.
The prosecution told the court that both the student and the girl had not completed their education. The counsel also informed the court that the accused’s mother had no objection to a future marriage after they attained the marriageable age, while pointing out that the investigation was still in progress.
When the appeal was heard, the girl’s counsel submitted that she had “no serious objection” to the grant of bail, in view of the affidavit and undertaking given by the accused that the student would marry her only after she attained the legally permissible age and completed his studies.
Story continues below this ad
The affidavit by the student stated that if the de facto complainant voluntarily chose to marry him after attaining the legally permissible age, her belonging to a different caste or community would not be treated as a ground or impediment to the marriage. He also undertook to respect her decision and not allow caste or community considerations to come in the way of such a lawful marriage.
Bail granted with safeguards
After considering the submissions and the material before it, Justice M Nirmal Kumar held that the accused could be released on bail. The court specifically noted that the investigation was still underway.
The accused was directed to execute a Rs 5,000 bond with two sureties for a like amount. He must appear before the police whenever required and must not cause any inconvenience or trouble to the girl. The court said that failure to comply with this condition could lead to cancellation of bail.
He was also barred from absconding and from tampering with evidence or witnesses during the investigation or trial. The investigating officer was directed to keep the developments recorded in the high court’s order in mind while proceeding with the investigation.
Justice M Nirmal Kumar noted the accused’s undertaking that caste or community differences would not hinder a lawful marriage if the girl later chose to marry him. (Image enhanced using AI)