Dalit boy married with a girl of different caste at an ‘Arya Samaj Mandir’, later the Girl accused the him and his family of sexual assault and kidnapping. The Boy allegedly committed suicide, after the Allahabad High Court refuses to quash the FIR on the girl’s willingness to pursue the case.
Wednesday, the bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, granted the anticipatory bail to the brother and brother-in-law of the boy, observing merit in the arguments of the appellants.
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants, “who are the brother and the brother-in-law of the deceased, have been falsely implicated”.
The Matter
The boy Shivam got married with the girl at an Arya Samaj Mandir in August, 2019 and the marriage was later registered before the ‘Registrar of Marriages’ at Lucknow on August 24, 2019. On the same, the girl’s uncle filed a case against the boy and his family including females under Sections 363, 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Shivam and his family then approached the Allahabad High Court on September 25, 2019, to quash the FIR, where the girl appeared in-person and express her willingness to pursue the case and return to her parents. Thereafter, the boy committed suicide on September 26, 2019 and an FIR was registered at Prayagraj. Nearly 15 days of the incident, the girl recorded her statement before the magistrate accusing Shivam and his family of sexual assault and kidnapping.
The anticipatory bail of the family got rejected by the the Sessions Court in December last year, while the High Court in February this year, granted some relief to the family and granted anticipatory bail to the three female members of the family while denied for brother and brother-in-law.
The bench
The bench granted anticipatory bail to the brother and brother-in-law of Shivam, but refused to express any consideration on the merit as the FIR is pending.
“Since the proceedings in the criminal case emanating from the FIR are still pending, we are not expressing any view on the merits of the rival submissions. However, having regard to all the facts and circumstances, and having noticed the submissions which have been recorded above, we are of the view that the interim order of this Court should be confirmed and the appellants should be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
