Long-standing physical relation between consenting adults not rape, Allahabad High Court rules

The counsel appearing for the accused stated that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was added that the alleged victim in the case was a widow with a 15-year-old son. The statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was in stark contrast to the story set out in the FIR, it was stated.

The counsel argued that the woman’s statement showed a consensual relationship and that no offence of rape was made out against the applicant.

On the other hand, the additional government advocate opposed the bail plea before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the accused had forced himself upon her at gunpoint and committed rape.

It was further added that the FIR and the statement recorded under BNSS Section 183 corroborated each other and contained no contradiction. It was further argued that the accused had committed a heinous crime and thus could not be considered for anticipatory bail.

Court grants relief to accused

• At the outset, the Allahabad High Court noted that the FIR did not indicate that the parties were in a consensual relationship.
• It, however, observed that the woman in her statement claimed that she had physical relations with him.
• The accusation that the accused committed rape with the woman at gunpoint did not align with the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it pointed out.
• The Allahabad High Court remarked that the FIR proceeded on the ground that the accused had an evil intent towards the survivor, but the statement depicted that the parties were in a romantic relationship.
• It also noted that the statement to the doctor during the woman’s medical examination showed that the parties had been in a relationship since 2024.
• Even the wife of the applicant is said to have called up the victim and told her that the applicant had “many relationships”, after which she claims to have stopped all contact with the applicant.
• It is thereafter that on 3.10.2025, the applicant committed rape upon the victim,” the Allahabad High Court observed.
• It held that the absence of these details in the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution’s version.
• The court, therefore, granted relief to the accused, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

Supreme Court’s ruling

The Supreme Court, in another case, quashed a rape case against a Haryana man, holding that a consensual relationship cannot later be recast as rape merely because the promise of marriage did not materialise.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR registered against him.

“The consent demolishes the case of the complainant that there was rape on the promise of marriage,” said the apex court on March 19, rejecting the foundation of the prosecution.

The court allowed the appeal filed by the man, setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR.