Introduction:

In the case Atul Gautam vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Depot. Lko. [2025 LiveLaw (AB) 14], the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused, Atul Gautam, on the condition of marrying the prosecutrix under the Special Marriage Act and depositing ₹5 lakh in a Fixed Deposit for the monetary security of the prosecutrix and their child. The prosecutrix had filed an FIR alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, along with charges of physical and verbal abuse. Both parties expressed their willingness to marry, leading the court to craft a decision aimed at ensuring justice and addressing concerns about the future well-being of the prosecutrix and her infant child.

Arguments by the Prosecutrix:

The prosecutrix, in her FIR, accused the applicant of raping her under the false promise of marriage and alleged acts of physical and verbal abuse under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. She expressed apprehensions about his intentions, fearing mistreatment after marriage, and sought a safeguard for her and her child’s financial security. During her appearance in court, she confirmed her willingness to marry the accused but requested the court to mandate undertakings from him to ensure her protection. She highlighted their long-standing live-in relationship, during which a child was born, as evidence of their intimate association but maintained her concerns regarding his behaviour.

Arguments by the Accused:

The accused sought bail by arguing that the FIR was a result of a minor dispute between them and expressed his desire to marry the prosecutrix and provide for their child. He submitted that their relationship had been consensual throughout, and he had no criminal history. To address her concerns, he willingly offered to marry her under the Special Marriage Act and agreed to deposit ₹5 lakh in the name of their child to provide financial security. He assured the court of his commitment to look after the prosecutrix and their child, urging that these actions demonstrated his genuine intentions.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan granted bail to the accused, emphasizing that the case involved the couple’s willingness to resolve their issues amicably. The court noted that the prosecutrix had affirmed her willingness to marry the accused, albeit with concerns about her future security. The court acknowledged the accused’s readiness to address these concerns by agreeing to financial provisions for their child. In its judgment, the court observed that such cases demand a balance between the parties’ rights and the broader interests of justice, particularly when a child’s welfare is involved.

The court crafted specific conditions to ensure accountability. The accused was directed to file an application under the Special Marriage Act within seven days of his release and expedite the process of obtaining a marriage certificate. Additionally, he was required to create a Fixed Deposit Receipt of ₹5 lakh in the name of their child through the prosecutrix within the same timeframe. The court emphasized that the accused must look after the prosecutrix and their child and abide by the undertakings given during the proceedings.

Justice Chauhan highlighted that the FIR arose from a minor dispute and that both parties were now willing to marry and live together peacefully. The court considered the absence of prior criminal history for the accused and the fact that the prosecutrix’s primary concern was her and her child’s future security. Observing that the conditions laid out by the court sufficiently addressed these concerns, the bail was granted.

The court’s decision underscores the judicial effort to balance the interests of justice, individual rights, and family welfare. While recognizing the prosecutrix’s apprehensions, the judgment also took into account the accused’s willingness to make amends and ensure financial and emotional stability for their family. By crafting a conditional bail order, the court aimed to promote reconciliation and secure the future of the prosecutrix and her child while protecting the accused’s rights under the law.