Supreme Court stays arrest of man accused under s. 376 IPC, SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court has stayed the arrest of a rape accused who has claimed that the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) were incorrectly invoked against him..The petitioner before the Supreme Court was named as an accused in an FIR and charged under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds that he had a consensual sexual relationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage..He was also charged with sections of the SC/ST Act, as the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste, a fact the petitioner claims he was unaware of..It was contended that the petitioner was being threatened by the complainant with false implications in various cases if her demands were not met. For these threats, the petitioner had filed a police complaint. In turn, the complainant filed an FIR against the petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act..The petition states that the offence under the SC/ST Act was enumerated against the petitioner “without any averments made in the said FIR to that effect” and the said fact was not known to him..The petitioner, therefore, approached the Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail to apprehend arrest on being “falsely implicated”. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the Chhattisgarh High Court..It is submitted by the petitioner that the High Court dismissed his appeal without considering the specific contentions, which is why he has moved the Apex Court..“Being denied substantial justice which affects his right to life and liberty by the Courts below, the Petitioner has moved the present Special Leave Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.”.The petition submits that while the FIR against him is registered as an afterthought merely out of vengeance, he is also an individual with no criminal past or antecedents and therefore should not be denied protection from arrest..Further, it is submitted that the allegations are those of consensual sexual relations and precedents have held that a case like this does not necessitate judicial custody or recovery of any sort..The petitioner, who was represented by Advocates Mayank Kshirsagar, Pankhuri, and Balaji Srinivasan, submits that the FIR is false and frivolous and has thus prayed for the Court’s leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court and has sought protection from arrest as interim relief..The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah issued notice in the case returnable by three weeks, and stayed the arrest of the petitioner. The Court has listed the matter for next hearing on December 7..Read the Order: