Prolonged Relationship Between Adults Influences Bail In Rape Case: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an advocate accused of rape, holding that the prolonged relationship between two consenting adults, coupled with the completion of the investigation, weighed in favour of granting liberty to the accused. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, sitting as a single-judge bench, delivered the judgment while balancing the gravity of the allegations with the principles of bail jurisprudence.

While the State raised concerns regarding the petitioner's alleged interference with the judicial process involving two judicial officers, the Court noted that those officers were not seized of the case and the interactions were initiated by the prosecutrix herself. The Court emphasized that pre-trial detention should not be punitive when the investigation is complete and the accused satisfies the triple test for bail.

Court's Rationale on Consensual Relationships and Bail

The Court noted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix, both members of the legal fraternity, were in a relationship for nearly five years. The prosecutrix expressed a 'no-objection' to the grant of bail, which the Court considered a relevant factor. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...this court is of the view that any action against the judicial officers by the Delhi High Court would take its own course, in accordance with law; however, such action against the officers cannot be a ground, in and of itself, to deny bail to the petitioner in the subject FIR... The petitioner has also served sufficient time in judicial custody as an undertrial; and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody any longer, subject of course to stringent conditions to ensure the fairness and integrity of the trial process."

Referring to the landmark decision in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court reiterated that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial and not to serve as a form of pre-conviction punishment.

Directions Issued to the Petitioner

The Court has the following directions:

"48.1. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with 01 surety in the like amount from a family member, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court;

48.2. The petitioner shall furnish to the Investigating Officer a cellphone number on which the petitioner may be contacted at any time and shall ensure that the number is kept active and switched-on at all times;

48.3. If the petitioner has a passport, he shall surrender the same to the learned trial court and shall not travel out of the country without prior permission of the learned trial court;

48.4. The petitioner shall not contact, nor visit, nor offer any inducement, threat or promise to any of the prosecution witnesses or other persons acquainted with the facts of case. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that is unlawful or that would prejudice the proceedings in the pending trial; and

48.5. In case of any change in his residential address/contact details, the petitioner shall promptly inform the I.O. in writing."

Background:

The case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 376, 506, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, later supplemented with charges under Sections 64(1), 69, 115(2), 74, 75, 351, 126(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant alleged repeated sexual assault and criminal intimidation. The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Earlier, the petitioner’s anticipatory bail was cancelled by a Co-ordinate Bench due to alleged interference with justice, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. However, in the present application, the High Court noted that the investigation was now complete, with the main and supplementary chargesheets already filed. The petitioner, a practicing advocate with deep roots in society, had been in custody for 64 days and fulfilled the requirements of the triple test. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application.

Case Details:
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 876/2026
Case Title: RANDHIR KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ANR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Sacchin Puri, and Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Nattasha Garg, Ms. Azra Rehman, Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Mr. Naren Rajput, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Akash Gehlot and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Counsel for Prosecutrix.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 387