'Relations Gone Sour' P&H High Court Grants Bail To Director In Punjabi Actress Rape Case Arising Out Of Live-In Relationship

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a music director accused of rape and other offences, observing that the parties were in a live-in relationship and that the allegations pertain to a period prior to the registration of the FIR after their relationship turned sour. [2025 LiveLaw (PH) 214]

The Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal noted that, “petitioner and the complainant were in a live-in-relationship. They were also engaged on 06.08.2025. Both are majors. The allegations of rape and other unnatural offences pertain to a period much prior to the registration of the FIR. It appears that on account of relations having gone sour, the FIR was got registered.”

As per the FIR lodged by the complainant, an actress, the petitioner had established contact with her through social media in 2025, following which they got engaged on 06.08.2025. 

She alleged that the petitioner administered an intoxicant to her and established physical relations without her consent, recorded obscene videos, and thereafter blackmailed and repeatedly assaulted her, including during trips to Shimla and Pathankot. Allegations of physical violence, threats, and forced consumption of drugs were also levelled.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that both parties were in a consensual live-in relationship. 

It was argued that the complainant had also been residing with the petitioner along with her mother, and that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship turned sour. It was further submitted that the petitioner had clean antecedents, had been in custody for over a month, and that no recovery was pending.

Opposing the bail plea, the State and the complainant argued that the allegations were grave in nature, involving rape, unnatural offences, and criminal intimidation. It was further contended that the investigation was still ongoing and that release on bail could result in the petitioner influencing the complainant or tampering with evidence.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the petitioner and the complainant were in a live-in relationship and were engaged. 

The Court observed that both were majors and that the allegations relate to a period much prior to the lodging of the FIR. It further noted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 12.05.2026.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court held that the question of guilt would be determined during trial and that, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the case was fit for grant of bail.

Mr. Samay Sandhawalia, Advocate and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

Title: XXX v XXX

Case no.: CRM-M-32740-2026