Long-term consensual relationships cannot be criminalized as rape unless clear evidence of deceit or malicious intent is established.

ORDER :

(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant by challenging the order dated 25.11.2024 passed in Misc. Cr. Application No. 2828 of 2024 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 13 of 2024 corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 98 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 376, 323, 341, 379, 387, 420, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1),(g)(r)(w)(f) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by which the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-Cum-Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ranchi has rejected bail of the appellant.

2. As per FIR, it is alleged that on 04.10.2016, Nilay (appellant) took the victim at Pahari Mandir, Ranchi where he applied Vermillion (Sindoor) on her forehead and places the Mangalsutra around her neck, a symbolizing marital commitment and thereafter, they established a physical relationship and lived as a couple but after some years, Nilay (appellant) and his family started to harass and humiliate her due to tribal background and in the year 2023, appellant refused to formalize the marriage and exploited her emotionally, physically and financially. Appellant has also threatened to post their intimate photos and videos on the social media.

3. Heard, learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Ajit Kumar and learned APP for the State Mrs. Amrita Kumari and learned counsel for the Respondent no. 2 Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Tiwari.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that allegations leveled against the appellant are false and frivolous.

5. It is submitted that the informant’s allegations are a retaliatory response to the demand of the appellant for payment of loan amount taken by her. The informant had borrowed money from the appellant over a substantial period, which is evident from the financial records and communications of the Informant and her complaint is not driven by genuine grievances, but to grab financial obligations and harass the appellant.

6. It is further submitted that the appellant had refused to marry the complainant citing caste differences which reflects a personal and cultural choice rather than evidence of deceit or fraudulent intent.

7. It is further submitted that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual for last around 7-8 years, based on the complainant’s admission that she believed she was in a marital relationship.

8. It is further submitted that the complainant has alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.8,55,314/- as repayment for financial assistance provided. However, the complainant herself admits for giving money to the appellant on several occasions, which indicate mutual financial exchanges and this fact reflects one-sided exploitation as well as financial dispute rather than evidence of harassment or abuse.

9. It is further submitted that the alleged threats and blackmail are vague and general in nature and they have long consensual relationship and the complainant had never raised any objection.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Yadav Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2025 INSC 151 and in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another reported in 2024 INSC 897.

11. It is submitted that the appellant that appellant is in judicial custody since 19.10.2024 and hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

12. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. It is submitted that there is a direct allegations leveled against the appellant for committing rape upon the victim girl for last several years.

13. It is further submitted that the appellant had moved with the Respondent No.2