Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Workplace Relationship Dispute

Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Workplace Relationship Dispute

Case Update: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in BAIL APPLN. 104/2025

Case Title: Abhijeet Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Date of Judgement: February 10, 2025

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar, sought regular bail under Section 483 and Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (earlier Section 439 CrPC), in connection with FIR No. 526/2024 registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi. The allegations pertained to Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting modesty of a woman), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC, 1860.

The petitioner was in custody since May 30, 2024, following a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, with whom he had been in a consensual relationship. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner coerced the prosecutrix into a sexual relationship under false promises of marriage, blackmailed her with intimate photographs, and even physically assaulted her.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner

Represented by Ms. Ranjana Singh, Mr. Pankaj Singh, Mr. Ritik Verma & Mr. Harsh Vardhan Mittal, the petitioner contended that:

• The complainant is a well-educated, independent woman who voluntarily entered into a long-term romantic relationship with the petitioner.
• The relationship was mutually consensual, as evidenced by their WhatsApp conversations and frequent trips together, including stays at hotels where she voluntarily produced her identity documents.
• The allegations of coercion, blackmail, and force were false and fabricated, stemming from personal vendetta after the petitioner discovered that the complainant was simultaneously involved with another person.
• The investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and trial proceedings were ongoing with no incriminating evidence against the petitioner.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi was relied upon, emphasizing that a breakup between consenting adults cannot result in criminal prosecution for rape.

Opposition by the Prosecution

The prosecution, opposed bail, arguing that:

• The complainant had been deceived under a false promise of marriage.
• The petitioner blackmailed the complainant with intimate photographs and threatened to make them viral.
• A medical report confirmed that the complainant had tested positive for pregnancy, further substantiating her allegations.

Observations of the Court

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while considering the facts, made several key observations:

• Close proximity at workplaces often results in consensual relationships, which, when turned sour, lead to criminal complaints. Courts must carefully distinguish between rape and consensual relationships.
• Relying on Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191, the Court reiterated that an unfulfilled promise of marriage does not necessarily amount to rape unless it was false from inception.
• The petitioner and complainant were in a long-term relationship, and the allegations arose only after their breakup, suggesting the possibility of a misuse of legal provisions.
• The petitioner had been in custody for over 8 months, and with the trial likely to take time, keeping him incarcerated indefinitely would serve no purpose.

Bail Granted: Conditions Imposed

Considering the totality of circumstances, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

• Furnishing a bail bond of ₹35,000 with one surety of the like amount.
• No tampering with evidence or contact with the complainant.
• No approach towards the complainant’s residence or workplace.
• Regular attendance at all trial proceedings.
• Keeping police authorities informed about any change in contact details.

Conclusion

This Judgement is a significant precedent in distinguishing false allegations from genuine cases of sexual violence, particularly in the context of modern workplace relationships. It reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to preventing the misuse of criminal law while ensuring that genuine complaints receive due protection.

The case, drafted by Pankaj Singh (Partner, ACM Legal) and successfully argued by Ranjana Singh (Partner, ACM Legal), highlights ACM Legal’s expertise in criminal defence and complex legal disputes.

This content is originally posted on: https://www.acmlegal.org/
Source URL: https://www.acmlegal.org/blog/delhi-high-court-grants-bail-in-workplace-relationship-dispute/