Rajasthan HC Grants Bail As Inter-Caste Marriage Dispute Triggers Criminal Case

The Rajasthan High Court has dismantled the basis of a criminal prosecution arising from a failed inter-caste marriage proposal, ruling that a consensual long-term relationship cannot be rebranded as a criminal offence once marriage talks collapse. In a decisive intervention, the Bench highlighted that significant discrepancies between a victim's initial allegations and their sworn statements under new procedural laws necessitate the immediate grant of bail to the accused.

Justice Sandeep Shah presided over the criminal appeal, which challenged the rejection of a bail application by a Special Judge in Sri Ganganagar. The case involved allegations under various sections of the BNS and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, revolving around a relationship that allegedly turned sour due to familial opposition to an inter-caste union.

Judicial Scrutiny of Consensual Ties and Statutory Allegations

The Rajasthan High Court closely examined the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which revealed a love relationship spanning since 2022. The Bench noted that the photographs submitted as evidence were nearly a year old, suggesting that the criminal complaint was an afterthought following the breakdown of marriage negotiations between the two families.

The Bench observed that "Having considered the arguments advanced by both the sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the victim herself has admitted the fact of a relationship between her and the appellant in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, the stark change in the version given by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS vis-a-vis the initial statements in the FIR, the FIR has been lodged since the marriage between both the parties could not be undertaken due caste differences between the family members, thus, this Court prima facie finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the necessary ingredients of the offences in question are not made out."

Background

The appellant was arrested on August 10, 2026, in connection with F.I.R. No. 218/2026 at Raisingh Nagar Police Station. He was charged under Sections 74, 78(2), 351(2), and 126(2) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant contended that he and the victim were in a love relationship since 2022 and intended to marry, but the relationship faced opposition from family members due to caste differences. The prosecution and the complainant's counsel opposed the bail, citing the nature of the offences. However, the Rajasthan High Court found that the trial would take a long time and that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not prima facie established given the victim's own admissions. The Bench set aside the order dated August 12, 2026, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar, and allowed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1426/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:45173
Case Title: Amit Kumar Alias Happy Vs. The State Of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.R. Godara, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP; Ms. Sonika, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 22048