’She herself invited trouble’: Allahabad High Court holds rape survivor responsible, grants bail to accused

The Allahabad High Court Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said the woman “herself invited trouble” and was “responsible” for an alleged act of rape, while granting the bail to the accused. The survivor claimed that she was intoxicated and met the man at a bar. He raped her twice in his relative’s apartment after she had agreed to go to his place for rest, she said, Live Law reported.

‘She was responsible’

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked, “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 doctor did not give any opinion about the sexual assault.”

The bench added the survivor, as an MA student, was capable enough to comprehend the “morality and significance of her act” as revealed by her in a First Information Report (FIR).

Survivor claims the intoxicated accused touched her inappropriately

According to the survivor, she, out of her own choice, went to a bar in Delhi along with three female friends, where they took alcohol, following which she became intoxicated.

She further alleged that she was at the bar until around 3:00 am, and during her time there, the accused stood firm in telling her to accompany him to his house. As she required support due to her condition, she agreed to go with him to rest. She further alleged that the man touched her inappropriately during the journey and, instead of taking her to his residence in Noida as she had anticipated, he took her to a relative’s apartment in Gurgaon, where he allegedly raped her.

The counsel of the accused, while seeking the bail, argued that even if all the allegations are considered to be true, it is not a rape case but may be a case of consensual relationship between both the parties involved. The arguments stated the accused has been staying in jail since December 2024, with no criminal history to his credit, and that if he is let go on bail, he will not take the advantage of bail and will cooperate in ensuring the prompt resolution of the case.

Additional Government Advocate for the State disagreed the prayer for bail of the applicant in the wake of the FIR, but he did dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as stated on behalf of the applicant.

Court orders bail

The court ruled, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the o1ence, 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 &t case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.”