A software engineer, who is accused of raping a woman on the false excuse of marriage, has shifted the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Rajasthan High Court, which directed his wife to appear in the country if he wanted to travel abroad for a job.
His petitioner said that the High Court said that the High Court in a clear violation of “procedural disqualified” and without listening to his wife, who is currently employed in the US, and ignoring that he is not part of the criminal case, directed him to live in India.
The petition filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey said that the direction passed by the High Court was “wrong” and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The case is listed for hearing on 8 August.
The lawyer argued that the direction is suffering from procedural irregularity and legal deformity, which has been passed without hearing the affected person.
ALSO READ: SC separated the period of jail found in the rape case, to complete the sentence
The petitioner is an Indian passport holder
“The petitioner is an Indian passport holder and Indian citizen and is not a citizen of any other country and will be under the control of the Consulate General in the USA and there is no possibility of being absconding as he is ready to go abroad to earn his livelihood on the work visa and therefore, there is no question of his absconding.
“He is leaving for a specific period and he takes a specific oath before the court that he will provide himself for testing and when directed, therefore, there is no question of delay and there is no question of his absconding,” the petition said.
The engineer was booked for rape at Christianganj police station in Ajmer.
Accused and woman met online
According to the petition, the accused and woman met an online marital site and was a close acquaintance for a period of about four years.
It was alleged that the man entered an intimate relationship with the complainant, promising him that he would marry him.
As per the possibility of arrest, the engineer applied an anticipatory bail, which was allowed.
He then made an application before the trial court and allowed them to go abroad in USA for employment.
The trial court rejected the application, which was attacked before the High Court, which allowed him to go abroad, but made a condition that his wife should live in India.
