The Court remarked that, since girls/women have upper hand when it comes to protection of law, they succeed easily in implicating a boy or man.
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that genuine cases of sexual offences are now exception and prevailing trend primarily involves false allegations of rape [Vivek Kumar Maurya v State & Ors]
The Court also observed that a significant number of cases are being brought where girls and women falsely lodge first information reports (FIRs) after engaging in a prolonged physical relationship with the accused in order to gain undue advantage.
Single-judge Justice Siddharth observed that the law is heavily biased against men and courts should be cautious when dealing bail petitions in such matters.
“The time has come that courts should be very cautious in considering such bail applications. The law is heavily biased against males. It is very easy to make any wild allegations in First Information Report and implicate anyone on such allegations as in the present case,” the Court said.
Additionally, the Court said that the influence of social media, movies, and TV shows is promoting an “openness culture” adopted by young boys and girls.
Nonetheless, the Court noted that when this behavior clashes with Indian societal and family values, leading to the protection of family and girl’s honor, it sometimes results in the filing of false cases.
“Such First Information Reports are also lodged when after living in live-in-relationship for sometime/long time, dispute takes place between the boy and girl on any issue. Nature of partner unfolds before the other partner with time and then whey they realize that their relationship cannot continue for life, trouble starts,” the Court held.
The Court also said since girls/women have upper hand when it comes to protection of law, they easily succeed in implicating a boy or man in the cases like the present one.
In the present case, the accused was booked for rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
He then moved the High Court for bail.
The counsel for prosecution alleged that accused had established sexual relations with the minor girl on several occasions and later on, married her only for sexual enjoyment.
The accused the compelled girl to have physical relationship with his cousin too and when she raised alarm, the accused-applicant and his cousin abused and beat her, it was contented.
The counsel for the accused argued that the survivor was a major and she had an affair with the applicant for the last one year. She willingly left her house and went to the house of the applicant’s aunt where she entered into physical relationship with the applicant with consent.
It was further submitted that they got married but she was later taken away by her parents against her wishes.
Subsequently, when a dispute arose between the family members, she left lodged the FIR.
While granting bail to the applicant, the Court observed that it appeared the FIR was lodged on the basis of false allegations and incorrect facts.
The Court also noted that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the applicant was officially registered. However, there had been no divorce, marriage dissolution or judicial separation through a court.
In light of the above, the Court noted that the filing of FIRs was consistently carried out through written applications prepared by experts in courts or by the Munshi/Head clerk at the police station and this practice is always fraught with the danger of false implication, similar to what occurred in the present case.
“The expert implicates all those with whom the informant/complainant has other grievances, not connected the offence being complained whatsoever, since the lodging of complaint / F.I.R against all enemies in one stroke is encashed as an opportunity. Their roles are so meticulously shown in the F.I.R that even the most experienced of the judges falter. For the courts at district level, it is quite hazardous to grant bail in matters of such serious and meticulously made allegations because of fear of disciplinary proceedings by the higher courts,” the Court observed.
The Court concluded that the prosecutrix’s elopement with the applicant and a court marriage indicated her continuous consent and also undermined the entire case of the prosecution. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
