Bail Conditions and Marriage
The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a rape accused, Atul Gautam, with the condition that he marry the survivor under the Special Marriage Act and deposit ₹5 lakh.
A similar condition was set in another case (Abhishek vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024), where the accused was asked to marry the survivor and care for their child.
This approach has been criticized for reinforcing regressive views that equate a woman's dignity with marriage, undermining the survivor's autonomy.
Court’s Role and Legal Precedents
In past rulings (e.g., Aparna Bhat vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021), the Supreme Court emphasized that bail conditions should avoid causing secondary trauma and not force contact between the accused and survivor.
The imposition of marriage as a bail condition contradicts these guidelines, as it may result in coerced or unequal relationships, undermining the survivor’s dignity and autonomy.
Courts must ensure bail conditions comply with the Criminal Procedure Code and do not reinforce patriarchal stereotypes.
Impact on Survivors
Requiring marriage as a condition can manipulate the survivor into a dependent relationship with the accused, sometimes leading to further abuse.
This practice risks legitimizing the crime under the guise of reconciliation, compromising the survivor's quest for justice.
The state's failure to provide adequate support (shelter, food, education, etc.) leaves survivors with few options, often pushing them towards coerced solutions like marriage to the accused.
Conflict of Interest and Judicial Concerns
Granting bail based on marriage conditions may alter the relationship between the accused and the survivor, influencing the trial's outcome and the survivor’s ability to testify.
It raises concerns about the impartiality of the court and the fairness of the trial, as it could lead to dependency on the accused, conflicting with the survivor’s welfare and justice.
These cases highlight the need for the judiciary to prioritize the rights, dignity, and autonomy of survivors, ensuring that legal remedies don’t perpetuate trauma or societal biases.
COMMENTS