PSU MD Ineligible To Unilaterally Appoint Sole Arbitrator; General Consent Not 'Express Waiver' Under Section 12(5): Allahabad High Court Testimony Of Chance Witnesses Requires Cautious Scrutiny; Presence Must Be Adequately Explained To Sustain Conviction: Allahabad High Court Decree Holder Can Execute Award Against Guarantor Even If Execution Against Principal Borrower Is Pending: Andhra Pradesh High Court NDPS Accused Entitled To Bail If Charge-Sheet Filed Without FSL Report & Tended Later Via Simple Letter: Bombay High Court Cyber Fraud Accused Who Is 'Prime Perpetrator' Cannot Claim Parity With Beneficiaries Who Received Bail: Calcutta High Court Non-Disclosure Of Cash Loan In Income Tax Returns Not A Valid Defence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Non-Examination Of Informant Not Fatal In Corruption Cases If Demand & Acceptance Proved Through Other Evidence: Delhi High Court Trial Judges Must Not Be Mute Spectators; Prosecution Duty To Place Exculpatory Evidence Before Court: Gujarat High Court Failure To Open Sealed Contraband Samples During Trial Vitiates Conviction; Prosecution Must Establish Physical Link In Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court Individual Liberty Must Yield To Collective Interest In Gang Rape Cases: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court Denies Bail Able-Bodied Husband Can't Avoid Maintenance By Citing Unemployment; Wife's Employment No Bar To Bridge 'Status Gap': Karnataka High Court Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Who Absconded For 14 Years; Says Continued Incarceration Unnecessary Since Investigation Is Over POCSO Trial Court Cannot Suo Motu Order Assistance Of Special Educator Without First Assessing Competency Of Victim: Madras High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Cannot Be Rejected On Ground Of Deceased Employee's Service Record If Not In Policy: Madhya Pradesh HC Limitation For Filing Written Statement In Commercial Suits Triggers From Service Of Summons With Plaint: Telangana High Court 'Last Seen' Theory Alone Insufficient To Convict For Murder Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Two In Charred Body Case Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Under Section 480(3) BNSS If Subsequent Offence Carries Punishment Less Than 7 Years: Supreme Court Joint Discovery Statements By Multiple Accused A 'Myth', Section 27 Evidence Act Requires Specific Authorship: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convicts "Further Inquiry" Under Service Rules Does Not Permit De Novo Probe: Supreme Court Reinstates Judicial Officer

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