Introduction:

In the case Salman vs. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court dealt with a grave matter involving allegations of a husband coercing his wife into prostitution. The petitioner sought bail after being arrested under multiple sections of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, following a complaint lodged by his mother-in-law. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, while denying bail, emphasized the severity of the allegations and the traumatic experience inflicted upon the victim, which went beyond a typical matrimonial dispute. The judgment underlines the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding women’s dignity, honour, and self-esteem.

Background and Allegations:

The case originated from an FIR lodged by the complainant (victim’s mother) on June 17, 2024. The victim married the accused in February 2024, and soon after, the complainant discovered that her daughter was being isolated from her family. After considerable effort, the complainant found her daughter, who revealed a horrifying ordeal. The victim alleged that her husband forced her into establishing physical relationships with his friends and other individuals, using coercion and incapacitating substances. These acts not only violated her physically but also attacked her dignity and self-worth.

The accused was booked under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 328 (causing hurt by poison), 376-D (gang rape), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was arrested in August 2024, leading to the present bail plea.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that the case was fabricated and rooted in matrimonial discord between him and his wife. He alleged that the victim’s parents, in collusion with the police, forcibly removed her from their matrimonial home and subsequently lodged false accusations. He argued that the charges were exaggerated, with no corroborative evidence to substantiate the claims of forced prostitution. Moreover, the petitioner maintained that he was a victim of biased investigations and deserved bail to prepare his defence.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The Additional Government Advocate (AGA) and the complainant’s counsel vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accusations were grave and substantiated by the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC. They highlighted that the accused entered into marriage with the ulterior motive of exploiting the victim. After the marriage, the victim was subjected to physical abuse, harassment, and forced sexual exploitation. It was alleged that the accused facilitated the entry of his friends into the victim’s room, compelled her to establish physical relationships with them, and used incapacitating substances to achieve his nefarious goals.

The prosecution emphasized that the victim’s statement vividly described her suffering and the heinous acts committed by the accused. They contended that granting bail to the accused would undermine the severity of the offence and compromise justice for the victim.

Findings and Judgment:

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, while rejecting the bail plea, underscored the heinous nature of the allegations. The court observed that the allegations were not merely a matrimonial dispute but involved severe violations of the victim’s dignity, self-esteem, and honour. The court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC contained specific details of how the accused coerced her into engaging in sexual acts with other men after administering a liquid substance that caused her to lose consciousness.

The court highlighted that such acts degrade and traumatize the victim, leaving an indelible scar on her dignity and humanity. The bench remarked that these allegations strike at the core of a woman’s honour and reputation and must be addressed with utmost seriousness.

Relying on the gravity of the allegations and the victim’s consistent testimony, the court concluded that the petitioner’s release on bail would not be in the interest of justice. The court emphasized the need to protect the victim and uphold the sanctity of her rights, rejecting the petitioner’s claim of false implication.

With these observations, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the bail plea, reinforcing the judicial commitment to safeguarding the dignity and safety of women.