The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting and physically abusing his fiancée, holding that a romantic relationship cannot be treated as permission to engage in sexual acts without consent.
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, in an order dated October 12, observed that the allegations were supported by medical evidence showing burn marks and other injuries on the woman’s body. The Court described the alleged conduct as inhuman and said the nature of the injuries indicated a barbaric and diabolical mindset.
The Court emphasised that refusal of consent must be respected regardless of the relationship between the individuals. It also expressed concern over the accused’s conduct after receiving interim protection.
Medical Evidence and Allegations
The proceedings arose from a police complaint filed by the woman, who alleged that her fiancé had sexually assaulted and physically mistreated her while they were living together in August.
According to the complaint, she had previously required hospitalisation for 15 days following a neck injury allegedly inflicted by the accused. She also alleged that the man consumed intoxicants, a habit she had opposed.
The woman approached the police two days after the alleged incident.
While considering the bail application, the High Court found that the medical records supported the allegations concerning injuries, including burns on her body.
Accused Cites Decade-Long Relationship and False Implication
Representing the accused, Senior Advocate N S Chandel submitted that the couple had maintained a relationship for approximately 10 years and were engaged to be married.
The defence questioned the complaint’s timing, pointing out that it was lodged two days after the alleged occurrence. It also maintained that no direct or circumstantial evidence connected the applicant to the accusations.
The accused sought protection from arrest on the grounds that he was unlikely to abscond, investigations were reportedly complete, and his detention would serve no useful purpose.
He further submitted that he was his family’s sole earning member.
Opposing the application, advocate Sheetal Vyas, appearing for the woman, argued that living together did not constitute automatic consent to sexual activity.
She also alleged that the accused continued to contact, influence, pressure and intimidate the complainant and other witnesses even after filing his bail application.
Delay in Complaint Not Fatal at Bail Stage
Addressing the two-day interval between the alleged incident and the police complaint, the High Court held that the delay could not, by itself, undermine the prosecution’s case at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail.
The Court considered the longstanding relationship between the parties relevant while examining the circumstances surrounding the complaint.
It also took serious note of the injuries documented in the medical evidence and the allegations concerning the accused’s behaviour after obtaining interim protection.
Justice Singh observed that even an established relationship did not entitle a person to disregard the woman’s refusal of consent or subject her to sexual violence.
Gravity of Offence and Public Interest Must Be Considered
The High Court further examined the principles governing anticipatory bail, observing that protection against arrest serves an important role in safeguarding individual liberty.
However, it held that such protection must be assessed alongside the requirements of justice, fairness and public interest.
The Court stressed that the seriousness of the alleged offence and its effect on society were relevant considerations, although each application must be decided according to its particular facts and circumstances.
Taking into account the allegations, the medical evidence and the circumstances presented before it, the High Court dismissed the accused’s anticipatory bail application.
