Knowing The Accused Or Being Cordial With Him Doesn’t Make Victim Responsible For Assault: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because a woman knew the accused or was on cordial terms with him cannot make her responsible for being sexually assaulted.

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman journalist seeking deletion of remarks made by a trial court that had cast doubts on her character while granting bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting her.

“Concededly, no person has a right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room,” Justice Mahajan said, adding that the trial court had erred in giving findings on the woman’s conduct at a stage when the investigation was still underway.

The judge also noted that “the trauma of the victim ought not to have been trivialised by such observations.”

The case stems from an FIR registered at Vasant Kunj North police station under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The accused man was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on January 18, 2025.

While granting bail, the ASJ had remarked that the complainant was “an educated girl who is gainfully employed as a journalist” and “expected to be aware of the consequences of her act”. The trial court had also inferred from WhatsApp chats that the relationship between the two appeared to be “cordial, mutual and voluntary”.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner woman and the accused man had exchanged contact numbers and started talking to each other. They went out for dinner, after which the accused invited her to his hostel at JNU, where she stayed the night. The next day, after finishing some office work late at night, she was about to leave when the accused asked her to stay over again. While they were watching a movie in his room, she fell asleep.

The woman later alleged that when she woke up, the accused was lying next to her and sexually assaulted her. She further alleged that on December 24, 2024, the accused again invited her to his hostel and sexually assaulted her a second time.

Before the High Court, the woman sought deletion of the remarks made by the trial court, contending that they questioned her character and could prejudice the trial.

Setting aside the observations made by the ASJ, Justice Mahajan held that such comments were “not warranted and ought not to have been a ground for admitting Respondent No. 2 on bail.”

“The observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim. The probabilities of the allegations cannot be commented upon in this manner as done by the learned ASJ while considering the bail application. The allegations could not have been trivialised for the reason that the victim, after the first alleged incident, again met the accused or went to his room alone,” the Court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 16 SCC 179, Justice Mahajan reiterated that Courts must refrain from making remarks that diminish the offence or trivialise the survivor’s experience in cases of sexual assault.

The Court thus modified the trial court’s bail order, directing that the remarks made in paragraphs 7 and 8 be set aside, while clarifying that the bail itself would remain unaffected.

“The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations,” the Court concluded.

Case Title: X vs State Govt. NCT of Delhi and Another & Anr.

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Date of Order: 15 September 2025