In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has underscored the need to differentiate between rape and consensual sex in failed relationships while granting bail to an accused in a sexual assault case. The decision was pronounced by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in Bail Application No. 104/2025. The petitioner was represented by advocates, while the state was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor along with SI Amit. The victim was represented by other legal representatives.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was arrested on May 30, 2024, in connection with FIR No. 526/2024, registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi, under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offenses), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insult to modesty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
According to the petition, the complainant, a 24-year-old independent woman, was in a consensual romantic relationship with the accused for a considerable period, during which they traveled together and frequently stayed in hotels. The petitioner argued that their physical relationship was consensual and that the accusations were fabricated out of vendetta after he discovered that the complainant was dating another person.
The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the accused had misled the victim with a false promise of marriage, blackmailed her by threatening to leak their intimate photographs, and assaulted her. The prosecution also presented a medical report indicating that the complainant had tested positive for pregnancy, reinforcing their claim that she had suffered harm due to the accused’s actions.
Court’s Observations and Legal Issues
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized the importance of distinguishing between rape and consensual sex in cases where romantic relationships deteriorate. The court relied on Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a mere breach of promise does not amount to rape unless it is established that the accused never intended to marry the victim from the beginning.
The court noted:
“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. Courts must carefully examine whether the accused genuinely intended to marry the complainant or had mala fide motives. If the promise was not made with the sole intent of seduction, the act would not constitute rape.”
The judgment further highlighted the evolving societal norms where workplace relationships and romantic associations are common. Justice Krishna remarked:
“In present times, close proximity at workplaces often leads to consensual relationships, which, upon turning sour, get reported as crimes. It is imperative for courts to recognize the distinction to prevent the misuse of legal provisions.”
Decision of the Court
Considering that the charge sheet had already been filed and charges had been framed on November 25, 2024, the court held that keeping the accused in custody for an indefinite period would serve no purpose. The trial was expected to take time, and continued incarceration of the accused would lead to undue hardship.
The bail was granted on the following conditions:
The accused shall furnish a bail bond of ₹35,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
He shall not tamper with any evidence or contact the complainant.
He shall not visit the complainant’s residence or workplace.
He must attend all trial proceedings as scheduled.
He must inform the SHO/Investigation Officer about any change in his address or mobile number.
