The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, presided over by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, has held that consent obtained through threat constitutes the offence of rape under criminal jurisprudence. The Court made this observation while rejecting the regular bail application of an accused facing charges of sexual assault, blackmail, and criminal intimidation, while granting him short-term bail for six weeks on humanitarian grounds due to the pressing domestic needs of his minor children and elderly mother.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered on April 2, 2026, at Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun, on a written complaint filed by the victim. In her complaint, the victim alleged that her husband, who entered into a real estate business with two associates—Mr. Manjeet Johar and Mr. Manav Johar—in 2021, facilitated her continuous sexual exploitation.
According to the FIR, Mr. Manjeet Johar repeatedly visited her home in her husband’s absence and forcefully assaulted her in January 2022. Subsequently, on February 10, 2023, her husband took her to a penthouse where Mr. Manav Johar was present; she was allegedly given a spiked drink, rendered unconscious, and dropped back home the next morning bearing bite marks and receiving coercive text messages.
In January 2024, her husband introduced her to the present applicant, Kushagra Sharma @ Romy, a business partner of Mr. Manav Johar. In September 2024, Kushagra Sharma allegedly coerced her to meet him at a hotel by threatening to share explicit photographs taken while she was unconscious. She alleged that Kushagra Sharma raped her at the hotel and that both he and Mr. Manav Johar repeatedly subjected her to physical assault and intimidation across various hotels and farmhouses in Dehradun and surrounding areas.
Following investigation, police filed a chargesheet against Kushagra Sharma under Sections 69 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, while exonerating the other two named co-accused. Cognizance was subsequently taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, under Sections 64 and 351 of the BNS, 2023.
Meanwhile, in a related writ petition filed by the victim alleging bias by initial Investigating Officers, a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an Additional Superintendent of Police was constituted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Dehradun, to conduct further investigation into the involvement of all suspects.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions for the Applicant: Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr. Lalit Sharma, contended that Kushagra Sharma was innocent and falsely implicated to save the victim’s matrimonial life after her husband filed for divorce on grounds of adultery.
He argued that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual, pointing to voluntary WhatsApp communications, group photographs, and shared hotel stays. He further highlighted that the FIR was lodged after significant delay, no electronic or forensic evidence was recovered to link the applicant to any obscene videos, and the grounds of arrest under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, were not communicated, violating constitutional guarantees under Article 21.
Seeking relief on interim/humanitarian grounds, the counsel submitted that the applicant’s wife had passed away from cancer in May 2024, leaving behind two minor daughters aged 12 and 5 years—one of whom suffers from a neurological condition requiring regular medical care—and a 71-year-old ailing mother who is unable to look after the household.
Submissions for the State and the Complainant: Learned Assistant Government Advocate, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, strongly opposed the regular bail application. He submitted that statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023, consistently supported the victim’s account of non-consensual exploitation. The State argued that friendly WhatsApp chats or proximity cannot be treated as conclusive proof of free consent or false implication.
The State highlighted that the victim’s husband admitted to furnishing a third party’s identification at a hotel to facilitate room entry where an assault occurred, demonstrating active facilitation and conspiracy. It was emphasized that further investigation by the newly formed SIT is at a crucial stage, and releasing the applicant on regular bail could lead to intimidation of the victim and destruction of electronic evidence.
Counsel for the victim submitted objections in a sealed cover, alleging ongoing coercion and intimidation by in-laws, police inaction on complaints, and fear for her safety.
Court Analysis and Key Findings
Examining the record, Justice Rakesh Thapliyal observed that the case presents allegations of continuous sexual exploitation and syndicate crime involving multiple individuals across several commercial locations.
Addressing the argument on consent and threat, the Court delivered a key legal ruling:
“In Criminal jurisprudence the “consent” obtained through threat constitutes an offence of rape and it can be termed as syndicate crime of sexual exploitation of a married lady, as per her version.”
Refusing to throw out the case on grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that the victim described a series of events spanning multiple years while living under duress and coercion. Evaluating the risks of granting regular bail while further investigation by the SIT was ongoing, the Court noted:
“In such a situation if the applicant is released on bail there is a high probability of risk for destroying the electronic evidence or to pressurize the hotel staff to wipe out the evidences.”
However, while declining regular bail, the Court noted the compelling domestic circumstances faced by the applicant’s minor children and mother following his wife’s death, emphasizing the necessity to balance legal rigor with humanitarian considerations:
“This Court must balance the stringent legal bar with humanitarian approach”
The bench emphasized that:
“Young children cannot be deprived of parental care due to incarceration of their father i.e. the present applicant, and simultaneously the old aged mother also cannot be deprived from proper basic needs, therefore, this Court take absolute humanitarian approach in granting short term bail for a limited period to the present applicant at this stage since further investigation is going on.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court dismissed the application for regular bail (First Bail Application No. 1123 of 2026) but allowed the application for short-term bail (IA No. 01 of 2026).
Kushagra Sharma @ Romy was granted short-term bail for a period of six weeks from the date of his release upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lakh with two reliable local sureties of like amount, subject to strict conditions:
- The applicant must surrender to the concerned court immediately upon completion of six weeks.
- The applicant shall not contact, approach, or threaten the victim or her family members directly, indirectly, or via electronic media.
- The applicant shall not visit the vicinity of the victim’s residence or workplace.
- The applicant must fully cooperate with the SIT, report to the Head of SIT whenever required, and not leave the city without permission.
- The applicant shall not approach any other person named in the FIR or suspects in the investigation.
- The applicant must hand over his passport to the Head of the SIT forthwith.
The Court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to immediate cancellation of the short-term bail.
Case Title: Kushagra Sharma @ Romy v. State of Uttarakhand
Case No.: IA No.01 of 2026 In First Bail Application No.1123 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rakesh Thapliyal
Date: August 06, 2026
