Delhi HC Upholds Survivor Dignity, Deletes Sessions Court’s Victim-Blaming Comments in Rape Bail Order [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside observations made in a sessions court order that cast doubt on the character of a sexual assault victim while granting bail to the accused, calling such remarks unwarranted and emphasizing that they trivialize the trauma of survivors.

Justice Amit Mahajan delivered strong observations on the impropriety of making character-based comments about sexual assault victims during bail proceedings, stressing that such remarks violate established Supreme Court guidelines.

The court was hearing CRL.M.C. 378/2025, filed by the petitioner-victim challenging the observations made in an order dated January 18, 2025, by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, in Bail Application No. 67/2025, arising from FIR No. 296/2024 registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The case involved allegations that the accused sexually assaulted the petitioner on two occasions — first on October 13, 2024, and again on December 24, 2024, at his hostel room in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The accused, a 25-year-old PhD student, was arrested on December 27, 2024.

While granting bail, the sessions court had remarked that the victim, being an educated journalist, should have been aware of the consequences of her actions. It also noted her prior relationship with the accused and the fact that she voluntarily visited his room on both occasions, inferring from WhatsApp chats that she may have tacitly consented to sexual intercourse.

Justice Mahajan termed such observations “unwarranted,” stating that they were “in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim.” He observed that no person has the right to sexually assault a woman merely because she visited his room voluntarily.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2021) 16 SCC 179, the High Court reiterated that courts must refrain from making character-based remarks while granting bail in sexual assault cases. The apex court had held that factors such as past consent, personal conduct, or perceived “unchaste” behavior are irrelevant and cannot justify leniency in bail.

Justice Mahajan further clarified that the petitioner had not sought cancellation of bail, but only the deletion of the prejudicial observations that could influence the trial. Acknowledging that the accused had not misused his liberty, the High Court modified the impugned order by setting aside paragraphs 7 and 8 of the sessions court’s order containing the victim-blaming remarks.

Counsel:
For the petitioner – Ms. Warisha Farasat, Ms. Suvarna Swain, and Ms. Kaustubh Chaturvedi
For the State – Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP
For the accused – Ms. Geeta Verma and Mr. Pawan Kumar

Case Title: X vs. State Govt. NCT of Delhi & Anr.

[Read Order]