'Complaint Has Retaliatory Motive': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Rape Case, Says Laws Being Misused After Failed Intimate Relations

Last week, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a 42-year-old man accused of rape by a 25-year-old woman, noting that the FIR seemed to arise more from the 'emotional aftermath' of their failed relationship, rather than from any bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing. The Court observed that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after the relationship between the applicant and the victim fell apart, and that the timing and circumstances surrounding the complaint suggested a 'retaliatory motive' rather than a 'genuine' pursuit of justice. A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal further noted that the woman, with full and conscious knowledge of the applicant's marital history, that he had been married thrice before, chose to establish a corporeal relationship with him. The Court added that their relationship, while mutual and consensual during its subsistence, “did not conform to the traditionally accepted institution of marriage or any form of legally recognised union”. In its 11-page order, the single judge also expressed concern over an emerging trend where failed intimate relationships are increasingly resulting in criminal proceedings. “This case is reflective of a broader societal shift, where the sanctity and solemnity once associated with intimate relationships have seen a marked decline. The prevalence of transient and uncommitted relationships, often formed and dissolved at will, raises critical questions about individual responsibility and the misuse of legal provisions, especially when such relationships turn sour” The bench added that it is increasingly being observed that 'personal fallouts' and 'emotional discord' are being given a criminal colour, through the invocation of penal laws, particularly in the aftermath of “failed intimate relationships”. Against this backdrop, the bench granted bail to the applicant accused, emphasising that “not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention.” As per the FIR, the informant came into contact with the accused-applicant while working at a private bank in Delhi. The accused promised her a job in his company, so she left her bank job and joined his company. According to the allegations, in January 2024, the accused spiked her coffee, raped her while she was intoxicated, recorded the act, and blackmailed her. He allegedly also forced her to sign documents, perform Saptapadi with her, and applied vermilion. In her complaint, she further claimed that rape and unnatural offenses continued in Delhi. In February 2024, he raped her again in Banda (UP) after showing her an indecent video of herself. That same month, she discovered she was pregnant and also learned that the accused had already been married to three women before her and had children with each of them. In March 2024, she was allegedly raped and assaulted, leading to the termination of her pregnancy. The accused then seized her documents, clothes, and ornaments. He also refused to marry her, forged Arya Samaj marriage documents, and withheld her salary. Before the Court, the counsel for the accused arfued that the FIR was delayed by 6 months and that the victim was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and that she willingly travelled with him to many places and stayed in hotels with him. On the other hand, the informant's counsel argued that the applicant was already married to three other ladies and is a casanova and is used to luring different women into consensual relationships. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the FIR was delayed by about five months, and the victim being a well-qualified lady, the Court granted him bail.Also read : Supreme Court Flags Misuse Of Rape Laws After Break-Ups, Quashes Case Against Ex-Judge Over Alleged Marriage Promise Appearances Counsel for Applicant: Senior Advocate Anup Trivedi, assisted by Nitin Chandra Mishra. Counsel for Informant: Devendra Singh, For State : AGA Sunil Kumar Case title - Arun Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 132 Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 132 Click Here ToRead/Download Order

'Complaint Has Retaliatory Motive': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In Rape Case, Says Laws Being Misused After Failed Intimate Relations

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags