Bail Granted in Alleged Promise-to-Marry Rape Case

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Shane Alam, who was accused of rape after a live-in relationship ended without marriage. The Court noted the social tensions around such cases, especially when personal relationships are criminalised after breakdowns. Bail was granted based on individual liberty, lack of criminal history, and overcrowded jails, without going into the merits of the allegations.

Brief Facts of the Case

• The complainant and Shane Alam were in a live-in relationship, travelling and staying together at various places.
• She later alleged that Shane had promised to marry her but backed out, which led to a case being filed under rape and POCSO Act provisions.
• Shane was arrested on 22nd February 2025 and remained in custody.
• The defense argued that the relationship was consensual and mutual, and there was no deception or coercion.

Legal Provisions Involved

• BNS Sections: 137(2), 87, 64(1), 61(2), 351(3)
• POCSO Act: Sections 3 and 4
• Constitution of India: Article 21 – Right to Life and Liberty
• Key Case Laws Cited:
  • Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P.
  • Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Arguments by the Parties

• Petitioner (Shane Alam):
  • Argued that the live-in relationship was entered into with mutual consent.
  • Claimed there was no false promise, and he never intended to deceive.
  • Highlighted his clean background, prolonged detention, and compliance with legal procedures.
• Respondent (State & Informant):
  • Claimed the accused misled the woman emotionally and exploited her by not marrying her.
  • Opposed the bail request, stressing that such betrayal ruins a woman’s future and dignity in society.

Court’s Observations

• Acknowledged that the concept of live-in relationships is legally accepted but remains socially controversial, especially in middle-class Indian society.
• Observed that such cases frequently arise when live-in relationships fall apart, often leading to criminal complaints.
• Recognized that women may face social difficulties after breakups, but also stressed that incarceration must not become punishment before trial.
• Highlighted the importance of individual liberty under Article 21 and the reality of overcrowded prisons.
• Allowed bail with clear instructions and safeguards to ensure the trial proceeds properly.

Conclusion of the Judgment

The Court granted bail to Shane Alam, placing strict conditions to prevent any interference in the trial. The Court made it clear that the bail order does not reflect any conclusion on guilt or innocence and that the legal process must take its full course.

Comments from the author of this website

There is a growing trend where failed relationships, especially those involving live-in arrangements, are turning into criminal cases—with the man often finding himself on the receiving end of harsh legal proceedings. A live-in relationship involves mutual choice, but when it breaks down, the emotional fallout is increasingly being handled not in personal or civil terms, but through the criminal justice system.

This raises serious concerns. The law was never meant to act as a tool to punish people for not marrying someone. When both partners enter a relationship as consenting adults, they must also carry the emotional risk involved—like any relationship. If one person later decides not to continue or marry, that disappointment—however painful—does not automatically amount to rape or criminal betrayal.

What’s more troubling is the asymmetry: men in such cases are immediately treated as suspects, jailed for months, and socially condemned even before a fair trial. Their personal lives, careers, and mental health suffer enormous damage. The presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of justice, appears to be lost once emotional hurt is misconstrued as criminal intent.

This is not a call to ignore genuine cases of exploitation—but a reminder that emotional conflicts and unmet expectations should not become reasons to criminalize someone. The justice system must remain cautious, nuanced, and fair—especially when dealing with personal relationships. We must ensure that the law remains a shield for the truly wronged, not a sword used after relationships fall apart.

Final Thoughts:

The intersection of personal relationships and criminal law is a delicate and complex area. As society evolves and live-in relationships become more common, the legal system must adapt—ensuring fairness for all without becoming a battleground for emotional revenge. Justice must protect dignity, but it must also guard against misuse. Equality before law should mean equal treatment, no matter which side of the relationship one stands on.

Read Complete Judgement Here