Case From Same Genre Where Parties Develop Sexual Proximity In Workplace But Result In Allegations Of Rape After Relationship Turns Sour: Delhi HC While Granting Bail
The Delhi High Court has emphasised that it is the responsibility of Courts to ensure the protection of law is a reality and not merely a “paper protection.”
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a rape case while holding that the case stemmed from the genre where parties developed sexual proximity while working in the same workplace, but it resulted in the allegations of force and rape after the relationship turned sour.
The Court held that it has the responsibility to interpret and apply the laws pragmatically to given situations to ensure that the protection of law is a reality and not merely a “paper protection.”
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults.”
Advocate Ranjana Singh represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that the accused established physical relations with the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. It was further contended that the accused later refused to marry her and subjected her to criminal intimidation and assault. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered, and the accused was taken into custody.
The accused sought bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that there was no material evidence to substantiate the allegations. The accused contended that the allegations arose after their breakup. He also claimed that the prosecutrix had voluntarily stayed with him in hotels and travelled with him, demonstrating consent.
Court’s Reasoning
As women are emerging and becoming a relevant part of the workforce, the High Court stated that it has a “corresponding responsibility” to interpret and apply the laws pragmatically to given situations to ensure that “the protection of law is a reality and not merely a paper protection.”
However, the Court emphasised 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.”
In the present case, the Bench noted was also “from the same genre wherein the Applicant and the prosecutrix developed sexual proximity while working in the same workplace, but after about one year, the relationship turned sour resulting in the present case with allegations of force and rape.”
The Court also noted that the accused has been in custody since May 2024. “Charges against the Applicant has already been framed and the matter is now fixed. The veracity of allegations levelled against the Applicant shall be tried during trial which is likely to take some time. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 30.05.2024. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Applicant behind bars for an inordinate long time,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused.
Cause Title: Abhijeet Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:810)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Ranjana Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ritik Verma and Harsh Vardhan Mittal
Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya; Advocates Priyanka Kumar and Ravi Saroha
