The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim protection from arrest to a Muslim doctor allegedly accused of raping a Hindu woman on the pretext of marriage.

A vacation bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajesh Bindal asked the Uttar Pradesh government to file its response in the matter, while directing the petitioner not to enter Moradabad, the place of registration of the case, till the next date of hearing.

Counsel, representing the woman complainant, objected to the interim protection from arrest granted to Dr Abdul Qadir, submitting that the man is a crorepati and contended that "this is a case of love jihad....".

The accused doctor, on the pretext of marriage, established sexual relations with the complainant, counsel added.

After hearing submissions from the doctor's counsel, the bench said "We grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner in the case registered in Moradabad until the next date of hearing."

After hearing submissions from the doctor's counsel, the bench said "We grant interim protection from arrest to the petitioner in the case registered in Moradabad until the next date of hearing."

It made it clear that the petitioner shall not enter Moradabad till the next date of hearing and shall not enter into any communication directly or indirectly with the complainant. "Issue notice. Returnable in 4 weeks", said the bench.

The petitioner moved the apex court challenging a May 10 Allahabad High Court order, which dismissed his anticipatory bail application.

The petition, filed through advocate G. Indira, said that the issue which is central to the facts of the case is that the complainant's lawyer is trying to extort money to the tune of Rs 1 crore by turning out a case of "love" into an incident of love jihad.

The plea said that lawyer's endeavour since beginning is to give a nomenclature to the relationship of the petitioner and the complainant a political and religious colour.

The plea said: "The petitioner herein and the complainant/informant/prosecutrix were in live-in relationship started in the year 2019 but the relation later turned sour following which the complainant/informant/prosecutrix filed a case against the petitioner herein by even writing that the petitioner herein portrayed himself as Hindu man by allegedly stating his name as Kabir, which is contrary to the records of the case." (PB/NewsGram)