“No” Means “No”: HP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail, Says Mere Relationship Does Not Imply Consent To Sexual Acts
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that being in a relationship does not give a person the licence to engage in sexual acts against their partner's will, remarking that “No” had to mean a “No.”
The Court made the observation while denying anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his fiancée in a case where the allegations were prima facie corroborated by medical evidence.
Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh remarked that: Adverting to the facts of the present case, suffice it to say that the conduct of the petitioner/accused was totally inhuman. Even if in a relationship, it did not give him a license to ravish the prosecutrix sexually and that too, in such a barbaric way. "No" had to mean a "No"
Background:
The petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The complainant, who had been in a relationship with the petitioner for around ten years and was engaged to him, alleged that on August 23, 2026, he physically assaulted and sexually ravished her, burned her private parts with a lighter and choked her.
The petitioner claimed false implication, citing the delay in lodging the complaint anddisputing the allegations. Opposing the plea, the complainant relied on medical evidence corroborating her allegations and alleged that the petitioner had attempted to intimidate her and other witnesses.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the complainant's allegations were prima facie corroborated by the medico-legal report, which recorded injuries and burn marks.
It observed that the delay in lodging the complaint was not fatal at the anticipatory bail stage and that being in a relationship did not imply consent to sexual acts against one's will.
Considering the gravity of the allegations and the petitioner's alleged conduct, including attempts to intimidate the complainant and witnesses, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.
The Court also flagged the omission of a column recording the probable duration of injuries in the revised MLC format and directed the State to consider remedial measures.
Date of Decision: 12.10.2026