The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a gym trainer accused of raping a 30-year-old woman advocate, asserting that matters of personal morality must remain distinct from criminal law when determining an individual’s right to liberty.
In a ruling delivered on May 12, Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the relationship between the accused and the complainant appeared to be a consensual romantic engagement rather than the criminal scenario described in the FIR. The court ordered the release of the gym trainer, who has been in custody since November 2025.
The case originated when the woman, a practicing advocate, alleged that she became friends with the trainer while attending his gym in Delhi’s Dilshad Colony. She claimed that the accused eventually administered a drug-laced beverage to her, rendering her unconscious.
According to her statement, the trainer then transported her to a hotel in Ghaziabad, where he allegedly raped her. She further claimed the accused had captured objectionable photographs during the incident, which he later used to blackmail her for money and to commit repeated sexual assaults.
During the proceedings, the court identified several gaps in the prosecution’s narrative. Justice Kathpalia specifically questioned the logistical feasibility of the complainant’s account regarding the initial assault.
“It is prima facie difficult to understand as to how after losing consciousness the prosecutrix would have travelled that distance [from Dilshad Colony to Ghaziabad],” the court noted in its order.
Furthermore, an examination of the evidence failed to support the claims of blackmail. The court observed that the photographs and videos submitted by the accused—and the data found on his seized mobile phone—contained no obscene or “objectionable” material. Instead, the court found the media depicted the pair in a seemingly consensual romantic relationship.
The Delhi Police strongly opposed the bail application, highlighting that the accused is a married man with a child. Prosecutors argued that his involvement in an “extramarital love affair” made him undeserving of judicial relief. They also pointed to the fact that the parties belonged to different religions.
Justice Kathpalia rejected these arguments, clarifying the court’s role in assessing liberty versus social conduct.
“Morality has to be kept separate from the offence, that too while dealing with the matter of liberty of an individual,” the judge stated.
The court also emphasized the complainant’s background and agency, noting that she was neither a minor nor illiterate. “Prosecutrix is aged about 30 years and is a practising advocate, fully aware of what is good for her,” the ruling stated, adding that there was no claim the relationship was built on a false promise of marriage.
Finding no reason to further deprive the accused of his liberty, the High Court allowed the bail application.
