Read Time: 07 minutes
Court noted that in the present case, the victim, fully aware of the man’s three previous marriages, had willingly entered into a consensual physical relationship with him
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape and other charges by a former colleague, holding that the case arose from a failed intimate relationship rather than 'criminal wrongdoing'.
The bench of Justice Krishan Pahal, while allowing the bail application on April 9, 2025, observed that the relationship between the complainant—a 25-year-old former bank employee—and the 42-year-old applicant was consensual and sustained over time. The bench noted that the FIR, filed almost five months after the alleged incidents, appeared to be the result of emotional fallout following a breakup.
The complainant alleged that when she was working at a bank, the applicant was an account holder there. He offered the complainant job of his personal assistant in his company. So, the complainant resigned from the bank and joined the applicant's company.
She alleged that only a few days after joining the applicant's company, he came to her house, spiked her cold coffee, sexually assaulted her, recorded the act, and later used the video to blackmail her. She also claimed that he pretended to marry her at Arya Samaj Mandir and continued sexually exploiting her under the false promise of marriage. The prosecution added that the applicant was already married thrice and had children from his previous partners.
However, the single judge bench found merit in the argument of the applicant's counsel that the relationship was consensual, and both parties had traveled together extensively, stayed in hotels, and exchanged romantic messages. The counsel highlighted that Sections 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) and 377 (unnatural offences) IPC had already been dropped from the charges during investigation, undermining the core of the prosecution's claims.
Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Ansaar Mohammad vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, the high court reiterated that entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape. Court also warned against criminalizing private moral choices, stating: “Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention.”
Importantly, the bench observed a rising trend of giving criminal color to failed relationships and stated that such use of penal law could amount to abuse of legal process. “This case is reflective of a broader societal shift, where the sanctity and solemnity once associated with intimate relationships have seen a marked decline,” the order noted.
While the court took note of the victim’s claims of forged marriage documents, it said that in light of judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and other, it would avoid detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case for only a prima facie satisfaction of case was needed at the present stage of the case.
Moreover, it highlighted that the government advocate could also not bring forth any exceptional circumstances that would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
It stressed that "it is high time that the courts should recognize the principle that 'bail is a rule and jail is an exception'."
Therefore, granting bail, the court ordered the man to furnish personal bonds and two sureties. He has also been directed to be present on key trial dates and to not tamper with the evidence. Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of bail and shall not influence the trial.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Mishra Vs.. State of U.P.
Please Login or Register
