SRINAGAR: In a significant development in the evolving jurisprudence of sexual consent under India’s new criminal code, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar on May 30, 2025, rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of rape under the false promise of marriage, asserting that prima facie evidence pointed to a sustained relationship built on deceit and manipulation through social media. The Court held that granting bail at this stage would jeopardise the collection of crucial digital evidence and could potentially discourage other victims of similar offences from coming forward.
The case stems from an FIR registered at Police Station Anantnag under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), with the complainant alleging that the accused, Shakir-ul-Hassan, developed a close and intimate relationship with her beginning in 2021, promising marriage and living with her both at his home in Anantnag and in Delhi. She alleged that the accused introduced her publicly and privately as his wife, borrowed Rs 10 lakhs for educational purposes, and repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of eventual marriage. Matters escalated on March 13 and 14, 2025, when she alleged she was invited for a formal gathering, but was instead sexually assaulted multiple times by the accused. When she raised an alarm, she claimed his family members had assaulted and threatened her.
The petitioner and his brothers, who were also named in the FIR, sought to quash the charges, arguing that the relationship was consensual, that the woman had criminal antecedents including theft, and that the complaint was a retaliatory measure after the accused filed a case of criminal intimidation against her. They further alleged that she had trespassed into their home and had demanded Rs 17 lakhs to drop her marriage demand. The petitioner’s counsel contended that mere breach of a marriage promise does not amount to rape under the law, and that the FIR was lodged without a clear directive from a Magistrate.
However, Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a detailed judgment delivered on May 30, 2025, upheld the registration of the FIR and rejected the anticipatory bail plea for petitioner No.1, while quashing the FIR in respect of the family members. The Court noted that the allegations against the brothers and another relative did not establish their knowledge of or participation in the alleged offence, and thus prosecuting them would constitute an abuse of legal process.
On the matter of the primary accused, the Court found substance in the complainant’s version. It was observed that the accused had engaged the complainant through social media, maintained a prolonged relationship while projecting intentions of marriage, and appeared to have extracted sexual favours under that false pretext. The Court dismissed the argument that the FIR was motivated or unfounded, stating that it was only after the complainant confronted the accused over his broken promise that the latter filed a counter-complaint—a sequence of events that undermined the petitioner’s claim of innocence.
Justice Dhar emphasised the gravity of the charges under Section 69 of BNS, which criminalises rape by deceitful means, and underlined that anticipatory bail in such matters cannot be treated as a right. Highlighting the sensitive nature of the allegations and the early stage of the investigation, the Court stressed the importance of seizing electronic devices and communications to establish the intent and extent of deceit. It warned that premature bail could allow the destruction of digital evidence and may embolden other potential perpetrators while discouraging survivors from coming forward.
The judgment reiterates the evolving judicial emphasis on digital evidence in cases involving online initiation of relationships and alleged sexual exploitation. It also serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to balance personal liberty with societal interest and the dignity of victims. The Court’s order not only sets a precedent in the application of the new BNS framework but also sends a clear message about the seriousness with which the judiciary treats offences of sexual abuse under deceit. -(KL)
