“You very well understand that you also have committed an offence by having a sexual relationship outside the marriage” On Wednesday, in a judicial proceeding that examined both the conduct of the complainant and the accused, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Patna High Court order granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, while issuing stern remarks against the complainant, a married woman with two children, regarding her own role in the relationship.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh dismissed the woman’s plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Ankit Barnwal, observing that the record did not reflect sexual activity between the parties after the woman obtained a divorce.
When the complainant’s counsel contended that the accused repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with the woman on the false assurance of marriage, the Bench confronted the petitioner’s legal standing and personal choices. “You are a married woman with two children. You are a mature person, and you understand the relationship you were getting into outside the marriage,” the Court stated.
Further questioning the woman’s repeated acquiescence, the Bench observed, “Why did you go to the hotels repeatedly at his beckoning? You very well understand that you also have committed an offence by having a sexual relationship outside the marriage.”
The complainant and the accused reportedly came into contact through social media in 2016, and subsequently engaged in a consensual physical relationship while the woman was still legally married. Allegations suggest that the woman sought divorce from her husband under pressure from Barnwal, which was granted by a family court. Shortly thereafter, she allegedly asked Barnwal to solemnise marriage, which he declined. She subsequently filed a complaint before Bihar Police accusing him of rape on the pretext of marriage.
Barnwal's application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed by the trial court. However, the Patna High Court granted him protection from arrest after noting that the records showed no sexual activity between the parties following the complainant’s divorce.
Affirming the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court refused to cancel bail, noting that the facts on record did not support the prosecution’s allegation of rape induced by deception post-divorce.
The Court’s oral observations raise questions about the scope of Section 375 IPC in cases involving consensual relationships where the prosecutrix is legally married to another at the time of the alleged offence. By pointing out potential criminality in the woman’s own conduct, the Court signaled a need for greater scrutiny in complaints of rape on the promise of marriage where both parties are aware of legal impediments or social constraints.
While the order itself upholds the High Court’s anticipatory bail grant, the broader remarks of the Bench underscore the judiciary’s increasing reluctance to entertain allegations of rape in contexts where long-standing consensual relationships later turn sour, especially when initiated and sustained by adults with full knowledge of their marital status and legal consequences.
The case is expected to proceed before the trial court on merits.
Picture Source :
