Anticipatory bail granted when serious allegations like gang rape are introduced belatedly with stark contradictions and no medical evidence: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-19

Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Gang Rape Case Citing 'Stark Contradictions' and Belated Allegations

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of gang rape, highlighting "stark contradictions" in the complainant's statements, a significant delay in lodging the FIR, and the prosecutrix's refusal to undergo a medical examination. The Court observed that while the allegations are serious, their gravity alone cannot be a ground to deny bail, especially when the prosecution's case is weakened by material inconsistencies.

The decision came in the case of Arpit Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) , where the petitioner, Arpit Mishra, sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including criminal intimidation, stalking, and eventually, gang rape (Section 70 BNS).

---

Background of the Case

The case originated from a verbal complaint on February 19, 2025. The initial FIR alleged that on February 16, 2025, the petitioner made abusive and threatening calls to the prosecutrix. The next morning, she was allegedly pushed and threatened by the petitioner and a co-accused.

However, the narrative evolved significantly. A prior complaint by the prosecutrix's brother on February 18, 2025, alleged robbery at his office, threats, and groping of his sister. Subsequently, in her formal statement recorded on February 21, 2025, the prosecutrix, for the first time, alleged digital penetration, leading to the addition of the grave charge of gang rape.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Submissions:

Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the FIR was a malicious attempt to settle scores arising from a civil property dispute between the families of the accused and the complainant. Key arguments included:

- Contradictory Narratives: The allegations changed drastically from simple threats in the FIR to robbery and finally gang rape in subsequent statements.

- Lack of Evidence: The prosecutrix refused a medical examination, no CCTV footage placed the petitioner at the scene, and Call Detail Records (CDRs) showed the complainant had called the co-accused, contradicting her claim of receiving threatening calls.

- Delay and Doubt: There was an unexplained delay of three days in filing the FIR. Furthermore, the brother's initial complaint contained a placeholder, "(Insert Time)," suggesting it was a pre-drafted document rather than a spontaneous account.

State and Complainant's Counter-Arguments:

The State and the complainant's counsel strongly opposed the bail plea, contending:

- Gravity of Offence: The allegations, including gang rape, are extremely serious.

- Intimidation and Tampering: The petitioner was absconding and had a prior criminal record. It was also alleged he had subsequently threatened the complainant's brother to withdraw the case.

- Flawed Investigation: The complainant argued that the Investigating Officer (IO) had improperly recorded her initial statement, omitted the charge of robbery, and dissuaded her from reporting the sexual assault citing "social stigma."

---

Court's Analysis and Key Observations

Justice Ravinder Dudeja conducted a detailed analysis of the evolving versions of the incident and found several inconsistencies that cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

"A comparative perusal of the initial complaint dated 18.02.2025, FIR dated 19.02.2025, and the prosecutrix's statement under Section 183 BNSS reveals stark contradictions. The FIR does not disclose any allegation of sexual assault or rape, whereas such allegations appear for the first time in the 183 statement."

The Court underscored several critical factors that tilted the balance in favor of granting bail:

1. Evolving Allegations: The introduction of grave allegations like rape only in a later statement, which were absent in the initial FIR, was viewed as a significant weakness.
2. Refusal of Medical Examination: The Court noted that the prosecutrix, a well-educated woman, consciously refused a medical examination, which is crucial evidence in such cases.
3. Lack of Corroboration: The absence of CCTV footage and contradictory CDR evidence further weakened the prosecution's claims.
4. Principle of Bail: The Court reiterated the legal principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." Citing precedents like Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra , the Court emphasized that the seriousness of an accusation must be balanced with the presumption of innocence and personal liberty.

"Mere apprehension of non-cooperation cannot override the principle of “bail, not jail”. The law leans in favour of liberty, particularly where the prosecution’s version is inconsistent."

---

Final Decision and Conditions

Finding that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence justified relief, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Arpit Mishra. It directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety.

Strict conditions were imposed, including that the petitioner must cooperate with the investigation, not contact the prosecutrix or her family, and not tamper with evidence or witnesses. The Court clarified that its observations are prima facie for the purpose of the bail application and will not influence the trial.