Granting bail to a man, the Delhi high court on Monday observed that there should be distinction between rape and a consensual relationship going sour.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that while it was the duty of the legislature and the executive to enact and implement laws for safety and well-being of women in the workforce, the court had a “onerous duty” to be a “watchdog” and prevent its abuse and misuse.
The court observed that many times, consensual relationships get reported as crimes after turning sour.
“In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults,” it said.
What was the case?
The Delhi high court said the case fell in the category in which the man and the woman were in a sexual relationship after working at the same place. After a year, the relationship turned sour, which paved the allegations of rape.
The court said there was no use of keeping the man, incarcerated in May 2024, inside jail for a long time. It said the charges were already framed and the veracity of the allegations should be verified during trial.
The man has submitted before the court that he had dated the woman and the couple were “in deep love” with each other.
The relationship ended after the accused found out that the complainant had allegedly been dating someone else. He claimed she filed the complaint to settle scores.
The police, however, opposed bail to the man.
‘Consensual relationship in POCSO cases legally immaterial’
Meanwhile, in a POCSO case, the Delhi high court observed that a plea of consensual relationship raised by a person, facing prosecution for sexually assaulting a minor, was legally immaterial as the age of a survivor was the decisive factor under the law.
“This plea of consensual relationship is legally immaterial. Under the POCSO Act, the age of the survivor is the decisive factor, and if the survivor is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent,” the court said.
The judge went on to add in the February 3 order, “The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”
With inputs from PTI