Complaint Driven by Retaliatory Motive: Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Rape Case, Flags Misuse of Law After Breakdown of Intimate Relationship
Safiya Malik
The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal allowed the bail application of the applicant accused of serious charges including rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation. The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail during the pendency of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. This directive came after assessing the factual matrix of the case, evidentiary inconsistencies, and applicable legal principles.
The prosecution’s case originates from an FIR filed by the informant, who alleged multiple incidents of rape and deception by the applicant. The informant, a Relationship Manager at Yes Bank, Old Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, claimed that she resigned from her job on 2 January 2024 to join the applicant's company as his personal assistant based on a job offer with a monthly salary of ₹75,000, accommodation, and other perks.
On 12 January 2024, it is alleged that the applicant visited the informant’s residence with spiked cold coffee, leading to her intoxication, after which he committed rape and video-recorded the act. The applicant allegedly used this video for blackmail. On 13 January 2024, the applicant took her to Mumbai and booked a hotel room using her Aadhaar card. He later allegedly made her sign documents and conducted saptapadi and applied sindoor, mimicking a marriage ceremony. Sexual relations continued after their return to Delhi.
The complainant further alleged that on 17 February 2024, at her aunt’s residence in Banda, the applicant showed her an indecent video and raped her again, forcing her to accompany him to Delhi under the pretext of marriage, which he claimed to be viable due to a divorce. She disclosed her pregnancy to the applicant on 20 February 2024. On 4 March 2024, she allegedly learned from his first wife that the applicant had been previously married three times and had children from each marriage.
Another incident was narrated where the applicant allegedly called the informant to the Golden Tulip Hotel in Lucknow on 28 March 2024, where rape again took place, allegedly resulting in termination of her pregnancy. She claimed that the applicant retained her original educational documents, clothes, ornaments, and her salary. He is also alleged to have forged a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Temple and later refused to marry her.
The applicant challenged the FIR in the High Court and was granted interim protection on 1 July 2024. He claimed the relationship was consensual, supported by WhatsApp chats, travel records, and hotel bookings submitted with the bail application. It was also submitted that the investigating officer dropped charges under Sections 313 and 377 IPC, thereby weakening the prosecution’s claims.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the victim was a consenting adult in a relationship with a man known to be married and that the complaint stemmed from emotional fallout. Reference was made to the closure report filed in a related case and subsequent protest petition by the informant. It was noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents except for the present case and had been in judicial custody since 8 January 2025.
The State, however, opposed the bail citing testimonies of two other women and the applicant’s history of deception. It was argued that he had forged a marriage certificate and misused his position and financial clout to manipulate the victim. The CJM Banda had ordered further investigation, noting deficiencies in the initial inquiry.
“It is imperative to bring to the fore the changing dynamics and depleting standards of sexual relationships in contemporary society.” The Court noted that the relationship between the applicant and the informant, while mutual and consensual during its tenure, did not amount to a legally recognized union. “While the emotional and romantic dynamics may not appear traditionally polyamorous, the relationship is consensual and involves two mature individuals.”
The Court further observed: “This case is reflective of a broader societal shift, where the sanctity and solemnity once associated with intimate relationships have seen a marked decline.” Emphasizing caution in criminalizing consensual relationships, the Court stated, “Not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention.”
Addressing the complaint's timing, the Court stated: “The instant FIR, instituted after the relationship fell apart, appears to be a product of emotional aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing.”
The High Court also cited judgments from the Supreme Court, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, noting that “entering into any kind of corporeal relationship with a person on the false promise to marry cannot be termed as rape” unless there was “a false promise made solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.”
The Court referred to the settled principle: “The law does not enforce all aspects of morality.” It observed that the delay of five months in lodging the FIR and the victim’s qualifications warranted consideration in granting bail. It stated that: “No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or intimidating witnesses have been shown.”
The High Court ordered that the applicant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0035 of 2024, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Banda, under Sections 323, 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC. The Court directed his release upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The applicant must not tamper with evidence. He is required to remain personally present before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of the case, framing of charge, and recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If the trial court finds his absence to be deliberate or without sufficient cause, it may treat such absence as abuse of bail liberty and proceed accordingly.
The Court clarified that breach of these conditions would warrant cancellation of bail. Verification of the applicant’s identity, status, and residence is to be completed before bond acceptance.
Finally, the Court stated that observations made in this bail order shall not influence the trial court in forming its independent opinion.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, Advocate; Sri R. B. Tripathi, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Sunil Kumar, A.G.A.; Sri Devendra Singh, Advocate for Informant
Case Title: XXX vs. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:51693
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9861 of 2025
Bench: Justice Krishan Pahal
[Read/Download order]
