Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To College Student Accused Of Raping 35-Years-Old Professor

The Delhi High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old college student who was accused of raping her 35-year-old professor. In its decision, the High Court took note of the fact that the prosecutrix had an acknowledged "guru-shishya" relationship with the applicant and was well aware that the applicant had not yet reached the age for marriage and hence it would not be inappropriate to infer that she was well aware of the consequences of engaging in a relationship with such an underage individual, a "student."

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee was dealing with an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail for the offences registered under Sections 313, 323, 376, 377, 506, 509, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the application, it was submitted to the Court that the FIR was filed with the sole intention of harassing the applicant who is a 20-year-old Student in the College, where the prosecutrix was a Professor. It was also stated that the prosecutrix has in multiple instances portrayed her intentions to intimidate the applicant and his family.

On the other hand, it was alleged by the prosecutrix that in May 2022, while she was on an official trip to Manali, they got married in a small temple and the applicant promised to legally marry her in future. It was also stated that the prosecutrix also met the family members of the applicant at his home who had no objection to their marriage. It was additionally stated that after coming to know about the pregnancy of the prosecutrix in April 2023, the applicant and his family forced her to abort the child, in furtherance of which, a pill was administered to her by the applicant. 

Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey along with Advocate Abhik Chimni appeared for the Applicant while Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the State. 

Considering the submissions, the Court noted that while considering a case like the present one, involving offences under Section 376 of the IPC, though the Court has to be cognizant of the heinousness, gravity and severity of punishment involved thereof, it has to also take due note and give sufficient weightage to not only the facts and circumstances involved therein but also the factual matrix including the antecedents and background involved as well as the whereabouts thereof.

Further, on the merits of the matter, the Court noted, "In any event, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the prosecutrix herein, admittedly, being a fully grown up matured adult lady aged around 35 years, who at the time of coming in contact (and entering into a relationship) with the applicant herein, was a young boy aged less than around 20 years. It is also not in dispute that the prosecutrix was already married to her ex-husband, however was undergoing divorce."

It was also stated that the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that as the prosecutrix is admittedly holding a Ph.D. in Marketing, she is certainly highly educationally qualified and on this strength, gainfully employed as a Professor in a reputed University in Gurgaon, whereas the applicant accused was/ is merely a ‘Student’ studying in the same University.

The Court also remarked that it would not be wrong for this Court to infer that she was/ is well aware of the repercussions of entering into a relation with such an underage individual ‘Student’. "De hors all the above, the prosecutrix on her own, chose not only to enter into a relationship with the applicant but also continue with the same for more than a year", stated the Court in its Order.

Justice Banerjee accordingly held that prima facie, it seems that the prosecutrix was in a relationship with the applicant out of choice and desire rather out of compulsion or force. The Judge stated that more so, whence she out of her own sweet will voluntarily chose to proceed with the applicant with open eyes, open ears and an open mind. The Court accordingly granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

The Court also refused to consider the issue qua an Instagram post put up by one Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj, a filmmaker and social activist working on men's issues, working at the behest of the applicant. The Court stated that the same is too farfetched as it requires due adjudication and trial. "In any event, the same is not relevant for consideration at this stage, while this Court is considering grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant", noted the Order. 

Cause Title: Sushant Kaushik v. State [BAIL APPLN. 3175/2023 & CRL.M.A. 25642/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order