Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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.

Similar News