Supreme Court quashes Madhya Pradesh HC 'Rakhi for Bail' order

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar issued a slew of directions, which included training modules for sensitization of judges and emphasized that judges should avoid any kind of stereotyping

SUPREME COURT
IANS New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Mar 18 2021 | 4:07 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside Madhya Pradesh High Court's order granting bail to a man accused in a molestation case on a condition that he would tie 'Rakhi' to the victim.

A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar issued a slew of directions, which included training modules for sensitization of judges and emphasized that judges should avoid any kind of stereotyping.

The Attorney General (AG) K.K. Venugopal had also opposed the bail condition.

The plea was filed by advocate Aparna Bhat and eight other women lawyers against the July 30 order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where an accused of sexual assault was asked to get a 'Rakhi' tied on him by the victim as a condition for bail.

"The bail condition in question amounts to further victimisation of the survivor in her own house. In the context of 'Raksha Bandhan' being a festival of guardianship between brothers and sisters, the said bail condition amounts to gross trivialization of the trauma suffered by the complainant in the present case", said the plea.

The petitioners had argued that the bail condition by the High Court should be set aside.

Bhat had contended in the plea that order has been passed by a constitutional court such as a High Court of a state and there is a strong likelihood that such observations and directions may result in normalizing "what is essentially a crime and has been recognised to be so by the law."

The plea said: "It is highly objectionable for the High Court in the present case to put the complainant in a position where she is forced to accept the sum of Rs 11,000 as part of the customary ritual of Raksha Bandhan. Moreover, the said bail condition also goes a step further by stating that Respondent No. 2 (the accused) tender Rs 5,000 to the son the complainant."

 

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme Court

First Published: Mar 18 2021 | 4:07 PM IST

Next Story