The Supreme Court has rejected the application against the order of the Delhi High Court in which the High Court had granted anticipatory bail to a Mumbai-based journalist in a rape case. 22-year-old woman has accused of rape. The aggrieved woman challenged the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail in the Supreme Court.
complaint application rejected
A bench headed by Justice Navin Sinha of the Supreme Court observed that there is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision and the application of the complainant is
The counsel submitted that the statement under section 164 clearly shows that he had indicated to her that she did not wish to go beyond a certain point. It is a law that the consent of the woman is required for every part of the sexual act. Since consent was refused at a certain point, the crime would clearly be classified as rape. The woman’s counsel Ramakrishnan told the Supreme Court that the conduct of the accused also needed to be considered by the apex court as he had absconded after the FIR was registered and evaded arrest warrant.
Important note of Supreme Court
By filing an application in the Supreme Court on behalf of the complainant, the lawyer argued that earlier the accused was absconding for 50 days and was evading non-bailable warrant. The Supreme Court said in oral remarks that this matter is of ordinary human behavior. If a man and a woman are in the room and the man insists and the woman accepts it, do we need to say anything more. But at the same time said that whatever comment we are making is only in the context of Bell Cancellation and we are not saying anything about consensus on a broader issue right now.