In an application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking regular bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) for the commission of offences under Section 308(2)/351(2)/64(2)(m)/79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia granted bail to the applicant.
The applicant was a gym trainer and the prosecutrix, a practising advocate, started visiting his gym, where they became friends. One day, the applicant administered a laced drink to the prosecutrix, because of which she became unconscious and went to some unknown place with the applicant, where he raped her and clicked objectionable pictures. Upon going to the gym the next day, the applicant showed those pictures to the prosecutrix, after which she realized that she had been raped.
The prosecutrix requested that the applicant delete those pictures, but he demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- by threatening to circulate them on social media. However, the prosecutrix could only provide Rs. 65,000/-. Thereafter, the applicant repeatedly raped her by threatening her that he would circulate the pictures.
The applicant submitted that he was in a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix and that once the relationship turned sour, she had lodged a false FIR, being aware that the applicant was a married man with a child. It was also asserted that the applicant had been transferring money to the prosecutrix for her to spend online.
The Court took note of 16 coloured photos and two videos showing that the parties were happily engaged in a romantic relationship and found it significant to keep in mind that the prosecutrix was neither a minor nor an illiterate person, but a practising advocate of about 30 years. The Court said that she was fully aware of what was good for her.
The Court stated that the applicant’s gym, where he allegedly administered the drink, was situated at Dilshad Colony, Delhi, while the OYO Hotel, where she alleged to have been raped, was far away in Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. The Court found it difficult to understand how the prosecutrix would have travelled the distance after losing consciousness.
It was stated that the seized mobile phone of the applicant did not contain any objectionable pictures or videos of the prosecutrix and that the pictures present depicted consensual romantic relations, supporting the applicant’s version of the facts. Regarding the State’s argument that the applicant was a married man with a child who had entered into an extramarital affair, the Court said that morality must be kept separate from the offence, especially while dealing with the liberty of an individual.
Considering that the applicant had been in jail since November 2025, the Court allowed the application and granted bail to the applicant subject to a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of the same amount.
Appearances:
For Applicant – Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Kapil Khanna, Mr. Asif Khan
For Respondents – Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal (APP)
