Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape, blackmail, and assault, noting that the complainant and the accused were in a consensual relationship for over a year before their dispute escalated into criminal allegations. The court observed that prolonged incarceration without trial would serve no purpose and directed the accused to adhere to strict bail conditions to prevent any interference with the investigation or intimidation of the complainant.

The case stems from an FIR (No. 526/2024) registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi, under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (outraging modesty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar, was arrested on May 30, 2024, following a complaint filed by a 24-year-old woman, who alleged that he had forced her into a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage and later blackmailed her with intimate photographs.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), arguing that the allegations were false and motivated by a failed romantic relationship. His counsel contended that:

• The complainant and the petitioner were in a consensual relationship for over a year.

• The complainant voluntarily engaged in physical intimacy and had never previously raised objections.

• A dispute arose in May 2024 when the petitioner discovered that the complainant was also dating another person, leading to a breakup.

• The complaint was filed as an act of vendetta, and there was no evidence of coercion or false promises of marriage.

• The petitioner had no prior criminal record, was the sole breadwinner for his family, and prolonged incarceration would cause financial hardship.

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations were serious and supported by medical evidence, including a report confirming the complainant's pregnancy. It was also submitted that the accused had threatened to make private photographs viral, posing a risk of further intimidation.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the allegations and evidence presented. The court acknowledged the evolving nature of relationships and the necessity of distinguishing between consensual intimacy and criminal conduct. Citing Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191, the court reiterated that: "There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must carefully examine whether the accused had mala fide intentions or made a false promise of marriage solely to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception."

The court noted that:

• The petitioner and complainant had been in a consensual relationship for a significant period.

• The complainant willingly traveled with the petitioner and stayed in hotels without reporting any misconduct.

• The dispute between them escalated only after the breakup, raising concerns about the motivation behind the complaint.

• The charge sheet had been filed, and charges were framed on November 25, 2024, but trial proceedings were likely to take time.

• Keeping the petitioner in judicial custody indefinitely would not serve any meaningful purpose.

The court granted bail to the petitioner with the following conditions:

1. Bail Bond Requirement: The petitioner must furnish a bail bond of ₹35,000 with one surety of an equal amount.

2. Non-Misuse of Liberty: The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted by the court.

3. No Contact with the Complainant: The petitioner shall not contact, intimidate, or influence the complainant or any witnesses.

4. Restricted Access to Complainant’s Vicinity: The petitioner shall not visit the complainant’s residence or workplace.

5. Regular Court Appearance: The petitioner must appear before the trial court on every hearing date.

6. Informing Law Enforcement: The petitioner must keep the Station House Officer (SHO) informed about his current address and mobile number.

The court stated that its decision did not reflect on the merits of the case, and the allegations would be fully examined during the trial.

Case Title: Abhijeet Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case Number: Bail Application No. 104/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]