The victim ‘herself wanted difficulty‘ and was ‘responsible‘ for the alleged act of rape, according to the Allahabad High Court, which recently granted bail to a man accused of raping a college student. The victim said that after agreeing to go to his relative’s apartment to rest because she was extremely drunk and in need of assistance after drinking, the accused, whom she had met at a club, had sexually assaulted her twice in his apartment.

This court believes that even if the victim’s claim is believed to be accurate, it can still be said that she caused the problem by inviting it and being accountable for it. In her statement, the victim has taken a similar stance. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that although her hymen was found torn during her medical test, the doctor did not express any view regarding the sexual assault while granting the accused’s bail request.

The bench further stated that the victim was competent enough to comprehend the “morality” and relevance of her act as revealed by her in the F.I.R. because she was an MA student. In essence, according to the victim’s account, she went to a Delhi bar on her own initiative with three female friends, where they drank alcohol, which caused her to become inebriated.

She added that the accused insisted she go to his house with him while she was there, and she stayed at the pub until about three in the morning. She consented to accompany him to relax because she needed assistance because of her condition.

She further claimed that the accused had inappropriately touched her while traveling and that, rather than taking her to his home in Noida as she had anticipated, he had taken her to a relative’s apartment in Gurgaon, where he raped her. The accused petitioned the HC for bail in the case, and his attorney contended that even if all the accusations are believed to be accurate, the case is not one of rape but rather one of a mutually agreeable connection between the parties.

The suspect has been detained since December 2024 and has no criminal record, according to the argument, and if he is released on bail, he will cooperate in the early resolution of the case and not abuse his freedom. In contrast, the Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the applicant’s bail request in light of the FIR, but he did contest the aforementioned factual aspect of the case as argued by the applicant.

In light of these arguments, the court granted him bail, noting: Taking into account the case’s facts and circumstances, the nature of the offense, the evidence, the accused’s complicity, and the arguments made by the parties’ knowledgeable attorneys, I believe the applicant has established a strong case for bail. Therefore, the application for bail is granted.