The case is about a  29-year-old Paras, who fell in love with a Muslim woman four years ago. Ignoring her alleged involvement in sex work, Paras converted to Islam and married her in April 2019. The couple sought protection from the Rajasthan High Court shortly after, claiming threats from the woman’s parents. The High Court then granted them protection in May 2019.

However, the love story took a dark turn when the woman divorced Paras in July 2019 and filed an FIR in April 2023. She accused Paras of attempting to force her into prostitution, raping her, and blackmailing her with explicit photos.

In order to seek relief , Paras took his plea to various courts before finding success in the Supreme Court. The court ordered to not arrest him at the moment and also issued a notice regarding his plea for anticipatory bail.

“There is a considerable delay of 4 years in lodging this FIR and the contents of the same reveal admission of marriage between the couple and conversion from Hinduism to Islam by the petitioner solely to marry……the FIR has been filed only to harass the petitioner and extort money from him”, said the plea.

Paras’s lawyer, argued that although the FIR alleges that the incidents occurred between April 2019 and March 2023, during the same period, the woman had sought protection from her own family through the Rajasthan High Court.

Saxena claimed that Paras had married his ex-wife despite knowing her involvement in sex work. Furthermore, he argued that she continued her lifestyle even after marriage, resulting in their estrangement.

Paras also claimed that the allegations made by his ex-wife were totally false and it was just an attempt to make him seem guilty and extort money from him.

The plea also said that “The High Court failed to appreciate that the complainant has wrongfully stated in the FIR that the petitioner dragged her in prostitution……High Court failed to appreciate that the ingredients in order to implicate the petitioner under the sections mentioned in the FIR have not been fulfilled and prima facie, there is no guilt attributed to the petitioner which might prove the case of the complainant”.

The plea stressed that no person or any witness could be brought on record either by the complainant or the prosecution which might prove the petitioner committed the crime as alleged in the FIR.