SC stays Rajasthan HC order restraining rape accused’s US-based wife from travelling abroad as ‘collateral’

The bench was informed that the petitioner would travel for a specific period and ready to state on oath that he would be available for trial as and when directed.
The Supreme Court has now asked the ECI to file a detailed reply by Saturday, after which the matter will be heard further.
The Supreme Court has now asked the ECI to file a detailed reply by Saturday, after which the matter will be heard further.(File photo | PTI)
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a Rajasthan High Court order asking a rape accused’s wife, employed in the US, to remain in India as a “collateral” if he wished to travel abroad for a job.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the Rajasthan government in the matter on the appeal filed by a software engineer, accused of raping a woman on the promise of marriage. The SC further directed the man to deposit Rs 2 lakh as surety for foreign travel.

According to the prosecution, the man was booked on rape charges by the Christianganj police station in Ajmer after it was alleged that he met a woman on a matrimonial website and maintained close acquaintance with her for four years on the promise of marriage.

Advocate Ashwani Dubey, appearing for the engineer, submitted that the wife was neither an accused nor a party to the case. He said no notice was issued by the Rajasthan HC and yet it passed an order restraining the petitioner.

“The wife, who is neither accused nor heard, is restrained from travelling abroad, purely to offset a hypothetical apprehension that the husband will abscond,” Dubey argued.

The plea said the high court, in a violation of the “procedural impropriety” and without hearing or impleading his wife, who is currently employed in the US, and ignoring the fact that she was not a part of the criminal case, directed her to remain in India. It was also argued that the HC direction was “erroneous” and violative of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and an Indian citizen and not the citizen of any other country and he will be under the control of Consulate General at USA and there are no chances of his absconding as he is willing to go abroad to earn his livelihood on work visa and therefore, there is no question of his absconding,” the plea said.

The bench was informed that the petitioner would travel for a specific period and ready to state on oath that he would be available for trial as and when directed.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com