Delhi High Court Denies Bail in Sexual Exploitation Case, Rejects Consent Defense
The Delhi High Court has firmly refused to grant bail to an individual accused of sexually exploiting a woman by threatening to circulate intimate videos. In a significant ruling, the court held that consent to a relationship or even a sexual relationship cannot be extended to support coercion, filming of intimate scenes, or their misuse through social media platforms.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma's Order and Case Background
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed this order on January 17, 2025, dismissing a regular bail application filed by the accused. The case was registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the gravity of the allegations.
The complainant, a married woman residing in Delhi with her children while her husband worked in Gujarat, came into contact with the accused due to family ties. The accused, who worked overseas, became very close to the complainant through continuous communication. During this period, he transferred approximately Rs. 3.5 lakh to her to help pursue a professional course, with an understanding that she would repay it upon securing employment.
Escalation to Coercion and Exploitation
The relationship soon took a darker turn. The complainant alleged that the accused manipulated her into submission to his sexual requests. She claimed he coerced her into stripping during WhatsApp video calls, which were recorded without her knowledge. When the accused visited Delhi towards the end of 2023, he presented these videos and forcibly established physical relations with her for two days under the threat of making the videos public. Additionally, he made a video where she was forced to admit having obtained Rs. 5 lakh from him.
Later, the accused started defaming her by sending the videos to people in her native village and posting inappropriate content on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. On January 17, 2024, an FIR was registered against him at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi. The complainant was medically examined at AIIMS, Delhi, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded, and the accused was arrested on January 20, 2024.
Arguments Presented During Bail Hearing
The accused argued before the High Court that the relationship was consensual and had soured after a disagreement over financial issues. He claimed the money given was a loan, relying on a loan agreement, and noted he had been in custody for nearly a year, with the forensic report still awaited and the trial likely to take time. He further contended that the complainant was in a consensual relationship despite being married and having children, and mentioned her work in a massage parlour to imply her profession weakened the allegations.
In contrast, the State opposed the bail request based on the complainant's statement under Section 164 of CrPC, stating the accused used intimate videos as instruments of blackmail and control. The prosecution highlighted that the accused not only prepared such material but also published it, aggravating the offence. An amicus curiae for the complainant argued the accused betrayed trust, created explicit content without consent, and weaponized it for sexual exploitation, with additional allegations of uploading morphed images of the complainant's minor daughter on social media.
High Court's Detailed Analysis and Ruling
In determining the bail application, the High Court examined whether sexual assault charges could be diminished by claims of a consensual relationship. The court observed that while the complainant may have agreed to a relationship in the past, such agreement cannot be regarded as a license for all future actions. It rejected the argument that a consensual relationship could automatically neutralize allegations of sexual assault.
The court made a categorical observation, stating: "Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person's private moments or their depiction in an inappropriate and derogatory manner." It further expressed that after intimate material is used to intimidate or control an individual, no subsequent sexual act can be considered consensual. The court held that the complainant was subjected to fear of humiliation and reputational damage, vitiating any assertion of free consent.
The High Court also frowned upon efforts to use the complainant's marital status or profession to weaken the charges, noting such arguments were ill-placed and legally invalid. It observed that the friendship was mutual and the accused could not later claim to have been forced into the relationship. The court stated: "While on one hand, it has been averred on behalf of the accused in the bail application, and also argued before this Court by the learned counsel, that he was in a friendly and consensual relationship with the victim, but on the other, he wants to blame the complainant of having entered into a relationship with him, allegedly consensual, despite being married — totally forgetting that the friendship was mutual, and not unilateral."
A major consideration was the accusation that the accused had morphed and shared photographs of the complainant's minor daughter on social media, claiming she was engaged in sex trade. The court found these allegations, coupled with confiscated digital material, contributed to the seriousness of the crime and could not be ignored at the bail stage.
After reviewing the material, the High Court concluded the accused's conduct went beyond a dispute from a failed friendship or financial transaction. It held: "Even if the first episode of the sexual relationship had been consensual, the subsequent acts were clearly rooted in coercion and blackmail." Considering the seriousness of the charges, the nature of digital evidence, and that material witnesses were yet to be examined, the court found it not a fit case for bail.
Conclusion and Directions
While dismissing the bail plea, the court expressed concern over delays in forensic examination and directed the Forensic Science Laboratory to expedite preparation of the pending report. It noted the accused was in judicial custody and emphasized the trial should not be delayed on that account. The court clarified that all observations were confined to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial, ensuring a fair legal process moving forward.
