All That Is Immoral Is Not Illegal: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Rape on Pretext of Marriage, Citing Consensual Nature of Relationship

“Law Cannot Be a Tool to Criminalise Failed Relationships Between Adults” — FIR Appears to Be an Outcome of Emotional Fallout, Not Criminal Wrongdoing - Delivering a deeply reflective and legally nuanced order Allahabad High Court granted bail to a man accused of rape, cheating and assault, observing that the case appeared more like the consequence of a failed consensual relationship rather than a genuine criminal grievance. Justice Krishan Pahal, while allowing the bail application, remarked that “not all socially or ethically questionable actions warrant legal intervention”, and strongly reiterated that "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception."

“Relationship May Be Immoral, But Not Illegal”: Court Finds Lack of Criminal Intent
The accused, Arun Kumar Mishra, a 42-year-old man, was charged under Sections 323, 376, 420, 504, and 506 IPC by a 25-year-old woman who alleged that he drugged and raped her after offering a job, promised to marry her, and later abandoned her despite having already been married multiple times. However, the Court observed that the woman, herself a bank employee, had entered the relationship voluntarily and even travelled extensively with the accused to cities including Mumbai, Shirdi, and Lucknow.
Justice Pahal noted, “The victim, with full and conscious knowledge of the applicant's previous marital history—having been married thrice before—chose to establish a corporeal relationship with him. This relationship, while mutual and consensual during its subsistence, did not conform to the traditionally accepted institution of marriage.”
The Court categorically held, “The instant FIR, instituted after the relationship between the applicant and the victim fell apart, appears to be a product of such emotional aftermath rather than a bona fide grievance of criminal wrongdoing.”

“You Cannot Turn a Love Affair into a Criminal Case Just Because It Ended Badly”: Court Cautions Against Misuse of Rape Law
Referring to recent Supreme Court precedents, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Deepak Gulati, and Nitin B. Nikhare, the Court reaffirmed the principle that not every promise of marriage, if unfulfilled, constitutes rape.
Quoting Deepak Gulati, the Court reiterated, “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex… an accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.”
Justice Pahal further observed, “There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused. Such cases must be treated differently.”

“The FIR Was Filed After Five Months — Conduct of the Victim Speaks Louder Than the Allegations”
In granting bail, the Court placed considerable weight on the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, despite the informant being “a well-qualified and working woman,” and noted that she continued to accompany the accused even after the alleged first instance of rape. “The delay and sequence of events raise questions about whether the FIR was truly motivated by criminal injury, or emotional vengeance,” the Court said.

“The Law Does Not Enforce Morality — Penal Provisions Cannot Be Invoked to Salvage Broken Relationships”
Reflecting on evolving social relationships, the Court observed, “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 judgment cautioned that "personal fallouts and emotional discord are being given a criminal colour, through the invocation of penal laws", and that the legal system must not be weaponised as a tool of retribution in failed love affairs. “The law does not enforce all aspects of morality,” Justice Pahal wrote pointedly.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to deny bail, and in light of the consensual nature of the relationship, the Court ordered the release of Arun Kumar Mishra on bail, subject to conditions ensuring his cooperation with the trial. “Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our jurisprudence, and no person should suffer incarceration unless found guilty through a fair process,” the Court said, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution and reaffirming that liberty cannot be curtailed without due process.
The Court concluded, “The case may fall within the realm of immorality, but cannot be elevated to the category of criminality, unless backed by cogent evidence and intent.”

Date of Decision: April 9, 2025