In a significant decision that balances the sanctity of the prosecutrix’s testimony with the necessity for critical judicial scrutiny, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a high-profile rape case. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh presided over the matter and emphasized that while the statement of the prosecutrix is of paramount importance in rape cases, it cannot be presumed to be entirely truthful without proper evaluation.
Case Background
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged in May 2024 by a married woman accusing the applicant of multiple offenses, including rape, criminal intimidation, and cheating under various sections of the IPC and the IT Act. The victim alleged that the accused exploited her under the pretext of securing her a government job. She claimed that the accused coerced her into a physical relationship with false promises of marriage, frequently assaulted her, and even retained her gold ornaments worth ₹5 lakh.
The FIR also implicated other individuals for allegedly assaulting and threatening the victim when she visited the accused’s house to recover her belongings.
Legal Issues Discussed
The bail application revolved around critical legal questions:
1. Consent vs. Coercion: Whether the sexual relationship between the parties was consensual or coerced under the guise of promises of marriage and job security.
2. Delay in Filing FIR: The defense raised questions about the delay of over 18 months in lodging the complaint.
3. Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony: The court considered the necessity to balance the primacy of the prosecutrix’s testimony with an objective assessment of the evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant:
The defense argued that the victim, being a married woman, was fully capable of understanding the implications of her actions. It was contended that the relationship was consensual and based on mutual intimacy, as evidenced by their chats. The delay in filing the FIR, the defense argued, was motivated by the victim’s attempt to shield herself when her husband discovered the affair. Furthermore, the defense claimed no criminal antecedents for the accused and assured his cooperation with the judicial process.
For the Prosecution:
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution and the victim’s counsel argued that the accused exploited the victim’s innocence, making false promises to manipulate her into a physical relationship. The prosecution highlighted the alleged threats and viral photographs, urging the court to deny bail given the severity of the accusations.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh granted bail to the applicant, citing the nuanced nature of the case. In his order, he remarked:
“The statement of the prosecutrix holds significant weight in rape cases and deserves primary consideration. However, there can be no presumption that it is always entirely truthful. It is vital to evaluate the circumstances, evidence, and conduct of both parties critically.”
The court noted that the prosecutrix, despite being married, maintained a prolonged relationship with the applicant. It found inconsistencies in her narrative, emphasizing that her delay in reporting the incidents undermined the prosecution’s claims of coercion.
While granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the trial and to prevent tampering with evidence. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties and to refrain from any contact with the victim or witnesses.
