Allahabad HC Cautions Against False FIRs Filed By Women in Sexual Offenses, Grants Bail Based On Legal Inconsistencies
The Allahabad High Court recently warned that false allegations in FIRs after consensual physical relationships were on the rise. It urged caution in granting bail, citing bias against males and the ease of making baseless accusations.
The Bench of Justice Siddharth observed that a culture of openness from social media and movies is leading to false FIRs in cases of sexual offenses. Genuine cases were now ‘rare’, and false implications have become the norm. It was pointed out that pre-trial bail is difficult, and district courts hesitate to grant relief due to fear of disciplinary action. In the present case, the main allegation of a false promise of marriage was contradicted by the court marriage between the parties.
"This court finds that large number of cases are coming in courts wherein girls and women take undue advantage by lodging First Information Report on false allegations after indulging in long physical relationship with the accused. The time has come that courts should be very cautious in considering such bail applications. The law is heavily biased against males. It is very easy to make any wild allegations in First Information Report and implicate anyone on such allegations as in the present case," the Court observed.
Advocate Om Narayan Pandey appeared for the Applicant and G.A. Lakshman Tripathi appeared for the opposite party.
The applicant had filed the bail application in the matter where he was charged under various sections, including Sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 504, 506, 354, 354-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that the applicant, Vivek Kumar Maurya, lured the prosecutrix, a B.Sc. Part-1 student from Varanasi, into a physical relationship with false promises of marriage. On May 3, 2019, the applicant enticed her and engaged in a physical relationship in Delhi. Despite her father filing a complaint about her abduction, the complaint was withdrawn due to pressure from the applicant's family. The applicant continued the relationship, registered their marriage on 27th August 2019, and took her to different places, repeating the offenses against her. At the applicant's Mama's place, he compelled the prosecutrix to engage in a physical relationship with his cousin, leading to abuse when she raised an alarm. The applicant threatened her life, and with his co-accused, physically assaulted and molested her. Eventually, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR herself on March 9 2020 regarding the incidents that occurred on 3rd May 2019.
The Court granted bail to the applicant based on several law points. One significant inconsistency was that the prosecutrix's fresh allegation about the applicant's demand for a physical relationship with his Mama's son was missing in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Additionally, the prosecutrix's voluntary participation in repeatedly eloping with the applicant and engaging in a consensual physical relationship raised doubts about coercion.
The Court also noted that the promise of marriage, forming the basis of their physical relationship, was fulfilled by the applicant, as admitted in the FIR. Furthermore, the lack of medical evidence supporting allegations of physical torture cast doubt on the meticulous drafting of the FIR.
Granting bail, the Court considered the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and took into account the severe overcrowding of jails by under-trials.
Cause Title: Vivek Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. And 3 Others
