Courts Should Differentiate Between Rape And Consensual Sex In Failed Relationships: Delhi High Cour

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Sexual Assault Case, Stresses Need to Distinguish Between Rape and Consensual Sex

 

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has emphasized the need to differentiate between rape and consensual sex in failed relationships while granting bail to an accused in a sexual assault case. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in Bail Application No. 104/2025, ruled that a mere breach of promise does not amount to rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the outset.

 

Case Background

 

The accused was arrested on May 30, 2024, based on FIR No. 526/2024, registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi, under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offenses), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insult to modesty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt).

 

The complainant, a 24-year-old independent woman, was in a long-term relationship with the accused, during which they traveled together and stayed in hotels. The accused claimed their relationship was consensual and alleged that the complainant fabricated the charges out of spite after he discovered she was seeing someone else.

 

The prosecution countered that the accused had deceived the complainant with a false promise of marriage, blackmailed her with intimate photographs, and assaulted her. A medical report confirming the complainant’s pregnancy was also presented as evidence.

 

Court's Observations

 

Justice Krishna relied on the Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) judgment, which clarified that a breach of promise does not constitute rape unless there was fraudulent intent from the beginning. She highlighted that in modern society, workplace relationships and romantic associations are common, and courts must carefully examine allegations to prevent misuse of legal provisions.

 

Bail Decision & Conditions

 

Considering that the charge sheet had been filed and charges framed on November 25, 2024, the court found no justification for prolonged custody. The accused was granted bail with the following conditions:

 

Furnish a bail bond of ?35,000 with one surety.

 

No tampering with evidence or contact with the complainant.

 

No visits to the complainant’s residence or workplace.

 

Mandatory attendance at all trial proceedings.

 

Inform the police of any change in address or mobile number.

 

 

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s effort to balance legal protections for victims while ensuring that criminal laws are not misused in personal disputes.

 AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube