Consensual Sex Between Consenting Adults Regardless Of Their Marital Status Not Wrong: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Rape Accused
|The Delhi High Court granted bail to a married man in custody on charges of rape (Section 376 IPC) holding that no wrongdoing can be attributed if consensual sexual activity occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of their marital status.
The Court stressed the necessity for the exercise of "utmost diligence" in evaluating prima facie allegations of rape, particularly when contentious issues like "consent and intent" were involved, remarking, “False allegations of sexual misconduct and coercion not only tarnish the reputation of the accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine cases.”
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “It is apparent that the prosecutrix was meeting the applicant for quite some time before the filing of the complaint and wanted to continue their relationship even after knowing the fact that the applicant is a married man. While societal norms dictate that sexual relations should ideally occur within the confines of marriage, no wrongdoing can be attributed if consensual sexual activity occurs between two consenting adults, regardless of their marital status.”
Advocate Shankar Datt Gahtori represented the applicant, while APP Mukesh Kumar appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant stalked the prosecutrix, professed his love, and threatened her upon rejection. Allegedly, he coerced her into sexual relations multiple times. The applicant purportedly married the prosecutrix, but she later discovered his existing marriage and children. Further allegations include demands for gifts, physical abuse, and coercion for unnatural sex. The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC after an FIR was registered for offences under Sections 376, 354D and 506 of the IPC.
The applicant, held in judicial custody for over a year, contended that the case against him was a means to harass, humiliate, and torment him, even though there were material discrepancies in the FIR and in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC.
To this effect, the Court pointed out that “no date or time of the alleged incident has been mentioned by the prosecutrix. A bald allegation has been made by the prosecutrix about the physical relations being established by the use of force by the applicant.”
The prosecutrix had contended that the applicant had established a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage, however, the Court remarked that she was aware of the factum of his subsisting marriage and continued with the relationship irrespective of the same. In the view of the Court, it prima facie pointed towards the prosecutrix’s consent towards maintaining the relationship with the aplicant despite knowing that he was married.
“It is apparent that the prosecutrix had taken a conscious decision after active application of mind to the things that had happened. Her actions at this stage do not suggest passive acquiescence under psychological duress but rather imply tacit consent, devoid of any misconception,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant while not rendering any findings as to whether the promise of marriage made to the prosecutrix was false and in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to when it was given.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Sunny Alias Ravi Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3478)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Shankar Datt Gahtori, Vijay Datt Gahtori, Tara Singh Bisht, Priyank Kharkwal, Subhash Kumar and Sameer Gautam
Respondent: APP Mukesh Kumar; Advocates Varun Gupta, Ashutosh Kaushik and Naveen Sarswat