Published on :
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied bail to a Muslim man accused of impersonating himself as a Hindu and raping a Hindu woman on the pretext of marriage [Hashim v. State of MP].
Noting that such offences are increasing day by day, Justice Anil Verma observed that the trend was dangerous for communal harmony in the society.
“It is revealed that prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. categorically stated that applicant has established physical relationship with her by impersonate (sic) as a Hindu on the pretext of marriage and pressurized her for converting herself into Muslim Religion, the prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Caste also…Such type of offences are increasing day by day and also dangerous for communal harmony in the society,” the order stated.
As per the prosecution, the woman is a Scheduled Caste Hindu who knew the accused Hashim one year prior to the incident, but did not know his religion.
It was alleged that on August 27, 2022, the accused induced the victim to come to Delhi on the pretext of marriage, and raped her. She also alleged that he brought her to a Dargah and pressurized her to convert to Islam.
After managing to return to Indore, the victim filed a complaint on the basis of which a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the accused for rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
After he was arrested by the police, the accused moved the High Court for bail.
Before the High Court, counsel for the accused submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
It was also argued that the accused has been in custody since September 22, 2022, the investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. Given the fact that the trial would take a long time to conclude, the lawyer urged the Court to grant the accused bail.
Counsel for the State contended that since the alleged offences were heinous and relates to rape and conversion of religion, bail should not be granted.
After considering the facts of the case and the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the Court noted that the accused did not raise any plea in the bail petition that the prosecutrix gave her consent to the physical relationship. Therefore, the Court held,
“In view of the prima facie evidence available on record, this court is not inclined to grant bail to applicant. Hence M.Cr.C. filed by applicant under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.”
The accused was represented by Advocate Sonali Rajoria, while Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas appeared for the State.
