In a petition filed to challenge an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, whereby respondent 2 (accused) was admitted on bail, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the observations made by the ASJ in the impugned order while opining that said observations were unwarranted and that they should not have been a ground for admitting the accused on bail.
The petitioner in the instant matter met with respondent 2, and they began talking after exchanging numbers. In October 2024, the petitioner went out for dinner with respondent 2 and thereafter respondent 2 invited the petitioner to his hostel at Jawaharlal Nehru University, where she stayed overnight. The next day, the petitioner got busy with work, which she finished late at night, and stayed over at the insistence of respondent 2.
It is alleged that the next morning, respondent 2 touched the petitioner inappropriately and sexually assaulted her. Thereafter, respondent 2 contacted the petitioner repeatedly and invited her to his hostel in December 2024. The petitioner was again subjected to sexual assault by respondent 2, and she filed a complaint with the police. Thereafter, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and respondent 2 was arrested on 27-12-2024.
By the impugned order, the ASJ admitted respondent 2 on bail, and the petitioner submitted that she would be satisfied if the erroneous observations in the impugned order were set aside since they may affect the final judgment.
The Trial Court, in the impugned order, observed that the petitioner was expected to be aware of the consequences of her acts. The ASJ also noted that the petitioner’s interaction with respondent 2 on WhatsApp chats appeared to be cordial, mutual, and voluntary. Further, the Court took note of the circumstances and inferred that the petitioner had no complaint against respondent 2 regarding the first alleged incident. With respect to the second incident, the ASJ inferred that the petitioner tacitly gave consent to have sexual intercourse.
The Court perused the impugned order and opined that the said observations were not warranted and that they should not have been a ground for admitting respondent 2 on bail. Further, the Court stated that the ASJ could not comment on the allegations in this manner while considering the bail application.
The Court stated that the allegations could not have been trivialized simply because the petitioner met respondent 2 or went to his room alone after the first alleged incident. It was noted that the ASJ erred in rendering findings regarding the victim’s complaint.
The Court opined that the victim would not be held responsible for the sexual assault only because she knew the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him. The Court said that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2021) 16 SCC 179, the ASJ should have refrained from making the observations against the petitioner.
The Court noted that the petitioner had not prayed to set aside the bail granted to the petitioner and set aside the observations made in paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Warisha Farasat, Ms. Suvarna Swain, Ms. Kaustubh Chaturvedi
For Respondents – Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, Ms. Geeta Verma, Mr. Pawan Kumar
