The Allahabad High Court noted that the law on sexual offences was heavily biased against men, so much so that genuine cases against them were “exceptions”.
A single judge bench of Justice Siddharth highlighted that a concerning pattern had emerged wherein false rape allegations were being made. These cases involved situations where a girl or woman falsely accused the defendant after willingly participating in a long-term physical relationship, with the intention of gaining unfair advantages.
The court should be “cautious” when hearing bail pleas in such matters, Justice Siddharth noted.
"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," Justice Siddharth said, according to Bar and Bench.
During the hearing, the high court was presiding over a case in which the accused faced charges of rape and other offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
According to the prosecution counsel, the accused was accused of engaging in sexual relations with a minor girl and marrying her solely for the purpose of sexual pleasure.
The counsel for the prosecution argued that the accused not only coerced the girl into having a physical relationship with his cousin but also resorted to assault when she resisted.
In response to the prosecution's claims, a lawyer representing the accused countered by stating that the girl was of legal age and had been in a consensual relationship with the accused for the past year. According to the accused's counsel, the girl willingly left her home and entered into a physical relationship with the accused at his aunt's house with her consent.
The counsel further explained that after their marriage, the girl was taken away by her parents against her will. Subsequently, she filed an FIR after a dispute arose within the family.
Based on these arguments, the court granted bail to the accused and observed that the FIR seemed to be based on false allegations and incorrect facts.
The court acknowledged that in such cases, the informant/complainant tends to implicate all individuals with whom they have grievances, even if those individuals are not connected to the alleged offense. This practice of including all enemies in the complaint is seen as an opportunity by the complainant, leading to meticulous descriptions of their roles in the FIR. The court recognized that this creates a challenging situation for district-level courts when granting bail in serious cases with such meticulously made allegations, as there is a fear of facing disciplinary proceedings from higher courts.
Advocate Lakshman Tripathi represented the State, while Advocate Om Narayan Pandey appeared for the applicant in the proceedings.
