Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Controversial Rape Case: “Relationship Consensual in Nature,” Says Justice Bhatnagar

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, granted anticipatory bail to Krishan Gaba, the petitioner in the case FIR No. 260/2023. The case, involving serious allegations under Sections 376, 377, and 504 of the IPC for rape and threats, saw a pivotal turn as the court observed the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix to be “consensual in nature.”

The decision, pronounced on November 9, 2023, came after a detailed examination of the allegations made by the prosecutrix and the defense put forward by the petitioner. The prosecutrix had accused Gaba of forceful physical relations, threats with nude photographs, and a forced abortion. In contrast, the defense highlighted the prosecutrix’s marital status and previous actions, including a withdrawn complaint and a false divorce decree.

Justice Bhatnagar, in his observation, noted, “The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant/prosecutrix appears to be consensual in nature.” This remark played a crucial role in tilting the scales in favor of the petitioner, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail.

Represented by a team of advocates led by Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala, Sr. Adv., the petitioner’s argument focused on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and her marital status. The court also took into consideration the lack of substantial evidence regarding the video-graphed sexual acts and the unsubstantiated threat complaints.

The decision has sparked discussions about the complexities Involved in cases of alleged sexual offenses, especially regarding the interpretation of consent and the impact of personal relationships on legal proceedings.

While granting anticipatory bail, the court also directed the petitioner to join the investigation as required and furnished a personal bond of Rs. 25,000. The court’s decision, however, does not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case, as clarified by Justice Bhatnagar in his order.

This judgment has opened a new chapter in the legal discourse on sexual offenses and consent, bringing to light the nuanced and delicate nature of such cases in the Indian judicial system.

Date of Decision: 09 November 2023

KRISHAN GABA  VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Latest Legal News