Facts of the Case

The case involves a 26-year-old man accused of raping a 23-year-old postgraduate college student. According to the victim’s statement, she met the accused at a bar in Delhi where she was socializing with three of her female friends. After consuming alcohol, she became heavily intoxicated. The accused repeatedly insisted that she accompany him to his residence, ostensibly so that she could rest. Trusting him due to her condition, the victim agreed. However, instead of taking her to his home in Noida as promised, he took her to a relative’s apartment in Gurgaon where, she alleged, he raped her twice. An FIR was lodged in May 2024, and the accused was arrested in September 2024. The bail application was filed after he had spent several months in judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused)

The accused, through his counsel, argued that even if all the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, the circumstances point more towards a consensual relationship rather than a non-consensual act of rape. It was submitted that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused late at night, under the influence of alcohol, and hence, the issue was one of consent and not of coercion or force. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that he had no prior criminal record and had already been incarcerated since December 2024. He undertook not to misuse the liberty of bail and assured full cooperation with the trial proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondent (State/Opposition)

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail plea citing the serious nature of the offense and the statements made in the FIR. However, the prosecution did not challenge the factual elements raised by the petitioner regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. The victim’s statement and the medical evidence, while pointing to a torn hymen, did not conclusively affirm sexual assault, and no expert medical opinion affirming rape was provided.

Court’s Observations

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court made several notable observations while allowing the bail plea. The court held:

“Even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”

The Court underscored the victim’s academic standing, noting that as a postgraduate student, she should have understood the “morality and significance of her act.” The judgment seemed to suggest that her voluntary intoxication and decision to accompany the accused created an ambiguous context that raised doubt about the charge of rape. Furthermore, while the medical report indicated a torn hymen, the doctor offered no definitive opinion on whether sexual assault had occurred.

Court’s Order

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”

This conditional bail, particularly the requirement to marry the complainant, has stirred widespread concern.

Backlash and Public Reaction

The ruling has triggered significant backlash from civil society, legal experts, and women’s rights organizations, who argue that it reinforces patriarchal notions of victimhood and dilutes the seriousness of sexual assault allegations. Critics have especially condemned the court’s statement that the victim “invited trouble,” terming it a classic case of victim-blaming.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai