The mere fact of initial consent does not legitimize subsequent exploitation and coercion under duress for sexual acts.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter "Cr.P.C.")/Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter "BNSS") has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 72/2024, for offence punishable under Section 376/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter "IPC") registered at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as evident from the complaint filed by the complainant, are that she was living in Delhi since 2018 with her children, while her husband was working in Gujarat. She had come in contact with the accused aged about 26 years, through her sister, as he was working in Kuwait with her sister's husband. As alleged, the accused had begun talking to the complainant over the phone and had subsequently enticed her. He had given her Rs. 3.5 lakhs to enroll in the course, which the complainant had promised to repay after securing a job. Thereafter, the accused had begun blackmailing her, compelling her to comply with his sexual demands. The complainant had complied with whatever the accused used to ask her to do. He allegedly had instructed her to undress during WhatsApp video calls. She has further alleged that at the end of 2023, the accused had come to Delhi had shown her a naked video of hers on his mobile phone, and had forcibly established physical relations with her for two days under the threat of making her videos public. He had also made a video of the complainant in which she was forced to admit having obtained Rs. 5 lakh from the accused. Later, he had started defaming her by sending the said videos to people in her native village. Later, he had posted her inappropriate video on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered on 17.01.2024. The complainant was medically examined at AIIMS, Delhi and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The present accused/applicant was arrested on 20.01.2024.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant argues that the allegations leveled by the complainant herein are vague and false. It is argued that it is a case of a long friendly relationship between the accused and the complainant, turning sour due to a dispute over money and, since the complainant was unable to repay the loan she had obtained from the accused, this false complaint has been lodged. In this regard, the learned counsel draws this Court's attention to a copy of a loan agreement, claimed to have been entered into between the accused and the complainant. The learned counsel further states that the applicant has already remained in jail for about one year, the FSL report has not yet been obtained and supplementary chargesheet has not been filed, and the trial is expected to take time to conclude; therefore, bail be granted to the accused.

4. The learned APP for the State, on the other hand, draws the Court's attention to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that it is not a case where the complainant is blackmailing the accused but the accused is blackmailing the complainant, as he has captured inappropriate videos of hers. The learned APP further submits that the FSL report in this case is awaited, and the allegations against the accused are very serious; therefore, the present bail application ought to be dismissed.

5. The learned amicus curiae, appearing for the complainant argues that the complainant had trusted th