Inter-faith couple, live-in relationship and Section 376 of IPC: Supreme Court grants bail after 9 months’ jail
Supreme Court also considered the fact that the inter-faith couple had jointly approached the High Court seeking police protection.
Supreme Court also considered the fact that the inter-faith couple had jointly approached the High Court seeking police protection.
The Patna High Court had rejected the petitioner’s anticipatory bail in this matter, while the Supreme Court granted protection to the petitioner against arrest on 16-12-2022.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court commented that victim's silence for such a long time would dent her credibility, and such a dent would not justify any further pre-trial incarceration. Thus, the Court allowed bail application, subject to certain conditions.
The Court observed that the convict was a young boy of 20 years, who has no father, and was shouldering the responsibility of his widowed sister and her son, hence, imprisonment for a term of 14 years would be adequate, to teach him a lesson.
Rajasthan High Court: The Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Code), quashed the First
Kerala High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing the
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
Delhi High Court: Stating that, cases under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 should not be quashed and should not be taken
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Prasanna B. Varale and S.M. Modak, JJ., quashed an FIR filed for an offence under
Kerala High Court: In a bail matter, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., noted the position of law that, a promise to marry made to
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, in the cases involving offences of serious nature falling
Kerala High Court: Dr Kauser Edappagath, J., addressed a matter wherein a married woman voluntarily had sex with her former lover. In
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., cancelled the bail of an accused who lured a female on the pretext of removing an
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ., refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual
Bombay High Court: C.V. Bhadang, J., while addressing the matter with regard to rape committed by a person claiming to have supernatural
Calcutta High Court: While addressing a matter under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., while addressing an alleged rape and murder
Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a father-in-law was accused of raping his own daughter-in-law, Subramonium Prasad, J., expressed that, Rape