The Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to a man accused of rape, hurt, criminal intimidation, insulting modesty of a woman and unnatural sexual intercourse by his female co-worker..Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that relationships at workplaces often become sour and lead to criminal cases. Thus, courts must be aware of the distinction between rape and consensual sex.“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 stated that while it is imperative to provide safeguards to women in workplaces, courts must use their 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 in a consensual physical and romantic relationship and had plans 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 alleged that when he got to know that the complainant was also with someone else, he tried to resolve the issue, but she broke all ties with him. Subsequently, out of vendetta, she filed the criminal case against him, he argued..The Court observed that charges have been framed in the case and that the applicant has been in custody since May 2024. While granting him bail, it said,“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 was that the applicant shall stay away from the vicinity of the house and the workplace of the complainant. .Advocates Ranjana Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ritik Verma and Harsh Vardhan Mittal appeared for the bail applicant.Additional Public Prosecutor Meenakshi Dahiya appeared for the State. Advocates Priyanka Kumar and Ravi Saroha appeared for the complainant..[Read order]
