In a controversial ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage, and instead turned its scrutiny toward the woman’s conduct, sharply criticizing her for engaging in an extramarital relationship.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh dismissed the woman’s plea to cancel the bail, taking strong exception to the nature of the relationship she had with the accused. The bench emphasized that the woman, who was married with two children at the time of the alleged incidents, was fully aware of the implications of pursuing an intimate relationship outside her marriage.
“You are a mature woman, married, with children,” the court observed. “You were fully conscious of the nature of the relationship you were forming.” The justices further warned her that engaging in sexual relations outside of wedlock could itself be construed as an offence, suggesting potential legal consequences for her actions.
Also read: Supreme Court reverses child custody ruling, citing child’s mental health concerns
According to court records, the woman and the accused first met in 2016 through a social media platform and soon became romantically involved. The woman alleged that she was coerced by the man to seek a divorce from her husband, which was finalized in March this year. However, when she asked the man to marry her after her divorce, he reportedly refused, prompting her to lodge a police complaint in Bihar, accusing him of sexually exploiting her under a false promise of marriage.
The Patna High Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the man, noting that no physical relationship took place between the two following the woman’s divorce. Upholding that decision, the Supreme Court questioned the woman’s repeated visits to hotels with the man while she was still married. “Why did you go to the hotels repeatedly on his request?” the bench asked, implying a degree of complicity and awareness on her part.
This ruling has sparked renewed debate on how courts interpret consent and promises of marriage in cases involving complex personal relationships, particularly when societal expectations and personal choices intersect. Critics argue that the verdict may discourage genuine victims from coming forward, while supporters claim it upholds the principle of personal accountability.
