Man accused of raping relative when she was minor, CJI-led bench asks: will you marry her?

A SUPREME Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India S A Bobde Monday requested a state authorities worker, who’s dealing with expenses of raping a relative when she was a minor, if he supposed to marry her now.
“Will you marry her?” the CJI requested whereas listening to a petition towards an order of the Bombay High Court setting apart a periods courtroom order granting anticipatory bail to the accused. “We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise, you will say we are forcing you to marry her,” the bench stated.
When the accused, a Maharashtra authorities worker represented by Advocate Anand Dilip Langde, replied that he had needed to take action earlier however was married to another person now, the apex courtroom rejected his attraction. But the bench, additionally comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanium, gave the petitioner interim safety from arrest for 4 weeks throughout which he can search common bail from the periods courtroom.
In his plea, the 23-year-old accused had prayed towards being arrested saying that beneath the state’s guidelines, he can be suspended from service if detained for greater than 48 hours. In an obvious reference to this line, the bench stated: “You should have thought before seducing and raping the young girl. You knew you were a government servant.”
Daily briefing | The tales you could begin your day with
The girl had moved the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court towards the periods courtroom order and identified that she was nonetheless a minor when the incident occurred.
In her plea, she had stated that her consent or lack of it might due to this fact not make any distinction to the fees. The periods courtroom ignored this and granted bail to the accused on the bottom that she had enough maturity when the alleged crime occurred and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the lady had stated.
According to her grievance, the accused began stalking her in 2014-15 when she was about 16 years outdated and learning in Class 9. Being a distant relative, he used to usually go to their home. One day, the grievance acknowledged, he clandestinely entered the home and raped her. He continued to sexually exploit her a number of instances thereafter and she or he was afraid to reveal this to anybody, it acknowledged.
Once, when she, her mom and a social employee went to the police to lodge an FIR, the mom of the accused satisfied them not to take action and promised to just accept her as a daughter-in-law, the grievance acknowledged.
The accused, the complainant alleged, additionally acquired a declaration from her mom that there was an affair between the 2 and that that they had consensual intercourse. It was additionally promised that since she was a minor, the wedding would occur after she turns 18, the grievance acknowledged, including that the accused went again on this following which the FIR was lodged.
Setting apart the trial courtroom order granting anticipatory bail, the High Court had stated that “one can easily conclude that going by the allegations, respondent No.2 (accused) has sexually exploited the applicant for a sufficiently long period since she was around 16 years of age”.
Referring to the purported declaration, the High Court had stated that the accused “and his family seem to be so influential that they could get executed this writing from the applicant and her widowed mother”.

It had additional stated: “The very fact that they could get such writing executed is indicative and is sufficient to infer that respondent No.2 had indulged in sex with the applicant even when she was merely 16 years of age.”

Referring to the periods courtroom order, the High Court had additionally stated that “the approach of the learned Judge (of the trial court)…clearly shows his utter lack of sensitivity in such serious matters”.