Detailed Facts of the Case:

The Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), read with Section 528 of B.N.S.S. (earlier known as 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), has been filed by the Applicant seeking Regular Bail. The Applicant has been in custody since 30.05.2024.

The complainant, a highly educated woman aged around 24 years, had a relationship with the Applicant, during which they were deeply in love, often travelling together and spending time at various locations. The Applicant asserts that the relationship was consensual, and there was mutual affection between the parties. The complainant expressed her love for the Applicant on several occasions over WhatsApp. However, the Applicant claims that the complainant’s allegations arose after discovering she was dating someone else. The Applicant contends that the accusations in the FIR are fabricated and based on malice after the complainant broke up with him in May 2024.

Contention of the Petitioner:

The Applicant submits that the complainant was an independent, open-minded woman who voluntarily engaged in a physical relationship with him. The Applicant denies any coercion, force, or sexual assault, asserting that their relationship was based on mutual consent. The Applicant also contends that there is no evidence to support the allegations, including claims of blackmail or threats to release photographs. He highlights that no complaint was made during their time together, which further supports the consensual nature of their relationship.

Additionally, the Applicant’s counsel argued that the investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant’s antecedents are clean, and he is the sole breadwinner for his family. The Applicant is also committed to not tampering with evidence or contacting the complainant or witnesses.

Contention of the Respondent:

The Respondent, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposes the bail application. They argue that the allegations in the FIR involve serious charges of false promise to marry, blackmail, and threatening to release intimate photographs. A medical report confirming that the complainant tested positive for pregnancy is presented as evidence. The Respondent asserts that these allegations, if proven, amount to grave offenses, and therefore, the Applicant does not deserve bail.

Court’s Observation:

The Court highlighted that the case involves a distinction between rape and consensual sexual activity. It emphasized the need for careful consideration of the relationship between the parties, particularly when intimate relationships turn sour. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court underscored the importance of distinguishing between consensual sex and offenses involving coercion or deception. In this case, the Court noted that the complainant and the Applicant had a consensual relationship that later turned contentious, with accusations of force and blackmail following their breakup.

Furthermore, the Court recognized that such cases often arise from the complex nature of relationships formed in the workplace, where emotions can become entangled with professional dynamics. The Court pointed out the responsibility of the legal system to address these cases carefully, ensuring that false accusations are not made and that the legal process protects the rights of both parties.

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court decided to grant bail to the Applicant considering the totality of circumstances. The Applicant had been in judicial custody since 30.05.2024 and keeping him in custody for an extended period without a trial was not seen as serving a fruitful purpose. The Court granted bail on the condition that the Applicant furnishes a bond of Rs. 35,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Credits: Deeksha Rai