Bail Granted To Man Accused Of Hiding Religious Identity From Prosecutrix & Committing Rape Under False Pretext Of Marriage: Madhya Pradesh HC
In the case of Tousif Kha S/o Yusuf Kha V/s. State of M.P. & Others (Cr.A. No.6530/2021), the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently granted bail to one Tousif Khan, who was accused of developing a relationship with a woman by lying to her about his religious identity and committing rape under a false pretence of marriage. The Court observed that the Prosecutrix appeared to be a major at the time of the occurrence, and based on her assertions, it is possible that she gave her consent.
Brief Facts Of The Case: Justice Pranay Verma was dealing with a bail plea by Khan (Appellant), who was accused with violating Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 506-B IPC, Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, and Sections 3(1)()(1), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to the prosecution, the Prosecutrix’s father reported that she was missing despite best attempts. She was found with the Appellant after the complaint. Her statement said she met the appellant two months ago and he told her his name was Vikas. He kept seeing her and eventually proposed. She believed him and followed him, and he subsequently raped her. The Prosecutrix visited him again after a few days and accompanied him to Ujjain, where he confessed his true identity was Tausif Khan and he was a Muslim. The prosecutrix alleges the appellant repeatedly raped her after she refused to marry him.
The appellant claimed he was innocent and wrongfully accused. He also said the prosecutor was a major who willingly met him and went with him. Throughout, she consented. He maintained that her remarks and behaviour proved she had intentionally created a physical connection with him and continued to do so after learning his true identity. He advocated for bail. Per contra, the State argued that based on the claims against the Appellant and the information acquired by the prosecution, he was not entitled to bail, especially because the Prosecutor said in her testimony that she learned of his genuine faith only on the day of recovery.
Judgement: After reviewing the evidence, the Court noted that the Prosecutrix had made conflicting claims and that she was a major, therefore the presence of consent could not be completely ruled out. With the aforementioned considerations, the Court determined that the Appellant deserved to be released on bail and granted the bail request as a result.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRAKIRTI JENA