A software engineer booked in a rape case has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Rajasthan High Court directive that requires his wife to remain in India if he wishes to travel abroad for employment. The petitioner, who is facing trial for allegedly raping a woman under the false promise of marriage, contends that the High Court’s condition is procedurally flawed and violative of fundamental rights.
The petition, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, asserts that the High Court order imposed an unreasonable condition without providing the affected person — the petitioner’s wife — an opportunity to be heard. The woman, currently employed in the United States, is not a party to the criminal proceedings and yet has been directed to stay back in India to ensure her husband’s return for trial.
Describing the order as “erroneous” and suffering from “procedural impropriety,” the plea argues that it infringes upon the wife’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty.
The accused, an Indian citizen with a valid passport, stated that he intends to travel to the U.S. on a work visa to earn a livelihood and has no intention of evading the judicial process. He submitted an undertaking that he would make himself available for trial whenever required by the court.
“There is no question of delay in trial or absconding,” the petition claims, emphasizing that the accused would remain under the jurisdiction of the Indian Consulate in the U.S. during his stay.
The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Christianganj Police Station in Ajmer, where the complainant accused the software engineer of entering into a sexual relationship with her over a period of four years under the promise of marriage. The two had initially connected through an online matrimonial platform.
While the accused was granted anticipatory bail, his request to travel abroad was first rejected by the trial court. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court granted him permission to travel, but with the contentious condition involving his wife.
