“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

Phone Calls Should Not Be Recorded Except With The Consent Of The Individuals Concerned: Bail In Rape Case: Delhi High Court

18 August 2025 9:37 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, granted anticipatory bail to xxx  in a closely watched case involving allegations of rape under false pretenses of marriage. The court's decision, reserved on November 29, 2023, and pronounced on December 20, 2023, emphasizes the "right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution," a crucial factor in its deliberations.

The petitioner, xxx , was accused of non-consensual sexual intercourse, allegedly under the false promise of marriage. The case hinged on the contentious admissibility and authenticity of WhatsApp chats and call recordings between the petitioner and the complainant. Mr. Justice Bhatnagar noted the importance of privacy rights, citing the precedent in "Sanjay Pandey Versus Directorate of Enforcement" and highlighting that "phone calls should not be recorded except with the consent of the individuals concerned."

In his observation, Justice Bhatnagar stated, "The allegations against the petitioner are serious; however, the evidence presented, including WhatsApp chats and call records, raises questions about their admissibility and the authenticity that require careful examination during the trial."

The court also considered the delay in FIR registration and the nature of the relationship between the parties. Despite acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the court found no substantial evidence to deny bail, especially given the petitioner's clean antecedents and the lack of necessity for further recovery in the case.

Represented by Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Shubhanshu Singh, and Mr. Suman Kumar, the petitioner's case revolved around challenging the authenticity of the evidence against him and asserting the consensual nature of the relationship. The respondent, represented by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, argued based on the complainant's accusations and the evidence presented.

The grant of bail, however, comes with stringent conditions, including a prohibition against any criminal activity, no communication or contact with prosecution witnesses or the victim's family, and a mandate to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Date of Decision: 20 December 2023

xxx  VS STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI    

 

Latest Legal News