Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, while grating bail to a man accused of rape noted that “a more onerous duty lies on the Courts to also be a watchdog to apply an even hand and deal with a given situation in a manner to prevent its abuse and misuse by any person”. 

The case stemmed from a workplace relationship that turned sour and led to allegations of coercion and sexual assault. An application was filed by the man seeking bail. Abhijeet Kumar, the petitioner, contended that he was in a relationship with a 24-year-old woman. But he found out that she was dating another guy, which was traumatic for him. It was contended that the woman broke all ties with the petitioner and then the woman filed a false and fabricated case under section 376 IPC out of vendetta. 

However, Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya representing the State argued that there were specific allegations of false promises to marry, blackmailing, and threatening the woman of making their photographs viral. 

The court at the outset noted in contemporary times that as women increasingly became a significant part of the workforce, it was the Legislature's and the Executive's responsibility to enact and enforce laws ensuring their safety and well-being. The courts had a corresponding duty to interpret and apply these laws pragmatically to real-life situations, ensuring that legal protection was substantive rather than merely theoretical. 

In the present era, the court emphasized that workplace proximity often resulted in consensual relationships, which, when turning sour, were sometimes reported as crimes. This distinction between the offense of rape and consensual relations between adults was crucial. The present case fell within this category, where the man and the woman developed an intimate relationship while working at the same workplace. However, after approximately one year, their relationship deteriorated, leading to allegations of coercion and sexual assault.  

However, the court dismissed the application on October 15, 2024, noting that the prosecutrix supported the prosecution's case, the charge sheet indicated the gravity of the offence, and there were allegations that the Applicant had threatened the Complainant and might influence witnesses or evade justice.    

Considering the overall circumstances and without commenting on the merits of the case, the court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹35,000/- with one surety of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

For Petitioner: Advocates Ranjana Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ritik Verma and Harsh Vardhan Mittal
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya with Advocates Priyanka Kumar and Ravi Saroha
Case Title: Abhijeet Kumar v State