The Court observed that relationships at workplaces often become sour and lead to criminal cases.
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to a man facing charges of rape, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, insulting a woman’s modesty, and unnatural sexual intercourse, as alleged by his female co-worker.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that workplace relationships often turn sour, sometimes resulting in criminal cases. She emphasized the need for courts to differentiate between rape and consensual sexual relations.
“In the present times, many a times close proximity at workplace results in consensual relationships which on turning sour, get reported as crimes, making it pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults,” the Court observed.
Justice Krishna emphasized the importance of safeguarding women in workplaces while highlighting the need for courts to exercise discretion in such cases.
“…when women are emerging and becoming a relevant part of the work force, it becomes the responsibility of Legislature as well as the Executive to enact laws and implement them so as to ensure their safety and well being. The Courts have an equal corresponding responsibility to interpret and apply the laws pragmatically to given situations to ensure that the protection of law is a reality and not merely a paper protection. However, a more onerous duty lies on the Courts to also be a watchdog to apply an even hand and deal with a given situation in a manner to prevent its abuse and misuse by any person.”
The complainant and the bail applicant were involved in a mutual romantic and physical relationship, with intentions of getting married.
“Even on a few occasions the Prosecutrix insisted to go to OYO Hotels even though Applicant was evasive for the same. During such stays, she voluntarily produced her Identity Card and did not raise any concerns or made any complaint of any alleged misconduct to the police or any other authority, which demonstrates that their physical relationship was with mutual consent, free-will and love,” the order recorded.
The applicant claimed that upon discovering the complainant’s involvement with someone else, he attempted to resolve the matter. However, she severed all ties with him and later, driven by vendetta, filed a criminal case against him, he argued.
The Court noted that charges have been framed in the case and that the applicant has been in custody since May 2024. While granting bail, it stated:
“The veracity of allegations levelled against the Applicant shall be tried during trial which is likely to take some time. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 30.05.2024. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the Applicant behind bars for an inordinate long time.”
One of the bail conditions required the applicant to maintain distance from both the complainant’s residence and workplace.