Delhi High Court: A bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 528 of BNSS earlier known as 439 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘CrPC’) read with Section 482 CrPC was filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail in FIR under Sections 376, 377, 506, 509 and 323 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., granted bail to the applicant as the veracity of allegations levelled against the applicant shall be tried during trial which is likely to take some time.
It is stated in the application that the petitioner is in custody since 30-05-2024. It is submitted that the complainant/prosecutrix is a highly educated independent woman, aged around 24 years, open-minded and elder to the applicant. The applicant and the complainant dated each other for quite a long time, and they were in deep love with each other. They had plans to get married and their families were aware of their relationship. Both used to travel out of Delhi on trips, including hill stations, Adventure Parks etc. and spent quality time together. They used to enjoy and cherish their time together as a happy couple. The prosecutrix had expressed her love for the applicant multiple times over WhatsApp, which shows no coercion or force in their relationship. Even on a few occasions the prosecutrix insisted on going to OYO Hotels even though applicant was evasive for the same. During such stays, she voluntarily produced her Identity Card and did not raise any concerns or make any complaint of any alleged misconduct to the police or any other authority, which demonstrates that their physical relationship was with mutual consent, free-will and love.
The applicant has alleged that in May 2024 he discovered that the complainant/prosecutrix was also dating someone else and regularly communicating with that person, which was quite traumatic for him. With the intention to resolve the misunderstanding, he met the Complainant in the last week of May, 2024 when she broke all the ties with him. However, out of vendetta she filed the false and fabricated complaint and got the FIR registered against the Complainant. It is asserted that the applicant’s promise of marriage was never false, and he never seduced the Complainant to indulge in sexual acts. There is no evidence to suggest any coercion, force or assault on the part of the accused. He never blackmailed her to share her private photographs and has not annexed their photographs with this Petition but has sought liberty to produce the same at the time of arguments.
The Court noted that in the changing times when women are emerging and becoming a relevant part of the work force, it becomes the responsibility of Legislature as well as the Executive to enact laws and implement them to ensure their safety and well-being. The Courts have an equal corresponding responsibility to interpret and apply the laws pragmatically to given situations to ensure that the protection of law is a reality and not merely paper protection. However, a more onerous duty lies in the Courts to also be a watchdog to apply an even hand and deal with a given situation in a manner to prevent its abuse and misuse by any person.
The Court remarked that “in the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults.” The Court further noted that in the present case, the applicant and the prosecutrix developed sexual proximity while working in the same workplace, but after about one year, the relationship turned sour resulting in the present case with allegations of force and rape.
Thus, the Court held that in the totality of circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the applicant was granted bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.35,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the undertaking that:
(i) The Applicant shall not misuse the liberty granted to him;
(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary during the trial;
(iii) The applicant shall not go even in the vicinity of the house and workplace of the prosecutrix;
(iv) The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing; and
(v) That applicant shall keep the SHO/ IO informed about his mobile number and the address.
[Abhijeet Kumar v State, BAIL APPLN. 104/2025, decided on 10-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Ranjana Singh, Mr. Pankaj Singh, Mr. Ritik Verma & Mr. Harsh Vardhan Mittal, Advocates for petitioner
Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Amit, Police Station Badli, Delhi Ms. Priyanka Kumar & Mr. Ravi Saroha, Advocates for Respondent No.2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
