High court rejects bail plea of rape accused

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) rejected the appeal of a man who was refused bail by a lower court under provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for raping a scheduled caste woman.

Advocate Aniket Nikam, appearing for the accused before the bench of justices Indrajit Mohanty and Sarang Kotwal, said that as the sexual relations were consensual, anticipatory bail should be granted.

However, the additional public prosecutor VB Deshmukh opposed the same on the grounds that though the woman was an adult, she had only consented to sexual relations after the accused had assured her of marriage.

He further informed the court that the woman had informed the man that they both belonged to different castes and his family would not accept their relationship. However, the man had assured that he would take care of her after marriage. She had consented to sexual relations based on this assurance, but when she later broached the topic of marriage, he started ignoring her. Deshmukh claimed that on these grounds, it was clear that he exploited her and was guilty under the Atrocities Act.

After hearing the submissions, the bench referred to section 90 of the Indian Penal Code which stated that consent known to be given under fear or misconception was not consent.

THE MAN HAD ASSURED THE WOMAN HE WOULD MARRY HER BUT AFTER HAVING SEXUAL RELATIONS, HE RENEGED