In a ruling that is bound to stir further debate on judicial sensitivity in sexual assault cases, the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape, observing that the woman “invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.” The order was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, who cited the victim’s decisions on the night of the alleged incident and questioned her judgment as a postgraduate student “competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act.”
The case, registered in September 2024, involves a postgraduate student residing as a paying guest in Delhi. According to the FIR, on the night of September 21, the woman, along with three friends, visited a bar in the upscale Hauz Khas area. The group consumed alcohol until around 3 a.m., after which the complainant, in a heavily intoxicated state, agreed to accompany the accused—identified as Nischal Chandak—to his residence to rest.
However, the woman later alleged that instead of taking her to his house in Noida, the accused took her to a relative’s flat in Gurgaon and raped her twice. She further claimed he had touched her inappropriately on the way and manipulated her trust during a vulnerable moment.
Justice Singh, while granting bail to the accused, remarked that even if the victim’s version is taken at face value, the facts indicate a “consensual relationship” rather than rape. The judge said:
“This Court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. Similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement. In her medical examination, her hymen was found torn, but the doctor did not give any opinion about the sexual assault.”
The Court further noted that the accused has no prior criminal record and has been in jail since December 11, 2024. His counsel argued that there is no risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence and assured full cooperation during the trial.
The State’s counsel opposed the bail plea but, as the court noted, did not contest the factual sequence of events as presented by the defense. Weighing the facts, the court ruled in favor of granting bail:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”
Previous Ruling on Breast-Grabbing and Pajama String Snapping
This judgment comes just weeks after another highly controversial observation by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the same High Court in a separate case. On March 17, Justice Mishra ruled that acts such as grabbing a woman’s breasts or snapping the string of her pajama do not amount to “attempt to rape” under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case in question involved two men, Pawan and Akash, accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl. According to the FIR, the two had allegedly grabbed the girl’s breasts, tried to pull down her lower garments, and attempted to drag her beneath a culvert before being interrupted by witnesses.
However, in para 21 of his judgment, Justice Mishra said:
“…the allegation against accused Pawan and Akash is that they grabbed the breasts of the victim and Akash tried to bring down lower garment of the victim and for that purpose they had broken string of her lower garments… This fact is not sufficient to draw an inference that the accused persons had determined to commit rape on victim…”
The judge concluded that these acts, while inappropriate, did not surpass the threshold from “preparation” to “attempt” as required under the law. The lower court had invoked Section 376 of IPC read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act in summoning the accused—sections which the High Court later struck down.
The ruling faced scathing criticism from the Supreme Court, which termed the judgment insensitive and regressive. The apex court said:
“We are pained to state that it shows a total lack of sensitivity on the part of the author of the judgment… Since observations in paragraphs 21, 24 and 26 are unknown to the canons of law and show an inhuman approach, we stay the observations in said paras.”
The Supreme Court had also directed both the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government to submit responses regarding the judgment.
