The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied bail to a differently-abled man who has been accused of rape on the pretext of marriage while citing caste differences.

Justice Vivek Agarwal was informed that the father of the applicant had refused to allow the marriage of the accused and the survivor on the ground of a 5-year-age difference and the fact that the survivor was from a different caste.

“In any case, apart from these facts what is glaring or staring at this Court is that in the 21st century, still in the name of caste and creed, social differentiation is being created,” the Court said.

The applicant applied for bail for the second time in a rape case while submitting that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse, and that they had stayed together at hotels on several occasions.

The respondents on the other hand said that this was not simply a case of consensual pre-marital sex, since both the parties were differently abled, and the applicant had enticed the prosecutrix with a promise of marriage.

However, as soon as he got a job with the Defence Ministry, he refused to fulfil his promise.

The Court took note of the fact that the applicant already knew of the age difference between them and there was also conscious knowledge of the difference in caste.

Therefore, noting that the prosecutrix was a vulnerable witness, bail was denied.

“I am of the opinion that to secure the interest of justice so also interest of a vulnerable witness, this is not the correct stage to extend benefit of bail to the applicant.”

Case title: Naresh Rajoria vs State