It is entirely in the fitness of things and so also stands perfectly justified that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X v State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors in Crl.M.C. 378/2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 15.09.2025 has set aside the observations that were made in a Sessions Court order which had cast doubt on the character of a sexual assault victim while granting the accused bail. It is worth paying attention that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that a woman’s prior familiarity or cordial relationship with the accused cannot be used to hold her responsible for the alleged sexual assault committed against her. To put it differently, the Bench unequivocally held that, “Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault.” Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this most commendable, courageous, cogent and convincing judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.01.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Bail Application No. 67/2025 arising out of FIR No. 296/2024, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North for the offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).”
As we see, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “By the impugned order the learned ASJ admitted Respondent No. 2 on bail.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 disclosing that, “The brief facts are, the petitioner meet Respondent No. 2 in June 2024, thereafter, they exchanged contact numbers and started talking to each other.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 laying bare that, “It is alleged on 12.10.2024, the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 went out for dinner, whereafter, Respondent No. 2 invited the petitioner to his hostel at Jawaharlal Nehru University, where the petitioner stayed the night.”
Further, the Bench reveals in para 5 that, “It is alleged that next day on 13.10.2024, Respondent No. 2 gave the petitioner a tour of the college campus and also introduced the petitioner to his friends. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner got involved in some of her office work which got finished late at night.”
Furthermore, the Bench then specifies in para 6 stating that, “It is alleged that the petitioner was ready to leave, however, Respondent No. 2 asked her to stay over the night to which the petitioner agreed.”
Going ahead, the Bench then mentions in para 7 that, “It is alleged that in the night both of them were watching a movie in Respondent No. 2’s room, whereafter, due to exhaustion the petitioner slept.”
Still more, the Bench then further lays bare in para 8 stating that, “It is alleged that after waking up the next day the petitioner saw Respondent No. 2 sleeping next to her. It is alleged that at that time Respondent No. 2 started touching her inappropriately and thereafter sexually assaulted her.”
What’s more, the Bench then reveals in para 9 stating that, “It is alleged that after the aforesaid incident the petitioner was traumatized and after confronting Respondent No. 2 about the same, she left from his room.”
Not stopping here, the Bench further mentions in para 10 revealing that, “It is alleged that after the first incident the petitioner tried to maintain her boundaries with Respondent No. 2, however, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly contacted the petitioner.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “It is alleged that on 24.12.2024, the petitioner again met Respondent No. 2, where he again invited the petitioner to his hostel.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 12 that, “It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 again committed sexual assault against the petitioner. Pursuant to her complaint the police registered FIR No. 296/2024 under Section 64(1) of the BNS. Thereafter on 27.12.2024, Respondent No. 2 was arrested in the present case.”
Do further note, the Bench then also notes in para 13 that, “As noted above, the learned ASJ by the impugned order admitted Respondent No. 2 on bail. It was noted that Respondent No. 2 was no more required for the purpose of investigation, he is aged 25 years and has no previous criminal involvement. It was also noted that Respondent No. 2 is a student of PhD at JNU and no purpose would be served by keeping him in company of hardened criminals in the jail and he must be given an opportunity to prepare for his defence.”
As things stands, the Bench then observes in para 14 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has since proceeded and she will be satisfied if the erroneous observations made by the learned ASJ against the petitioner are set aside since that may affect the final judgment.”
Truth be told, the Bench points out in para 15 that, “It is observed that the learned Trial Court while admitting the accused on bail made certain observations against the petitioner which are set out below:
“7. The complainant is an educated girl who is gainfully employed as a journalist. Therefore, she is expected to be aware about the consequences of her act. As per the said whatsapp chats, she has claimed to be in a committed long distance relationship with some third person. The said chats indicate that she was unhappy with the said relationship as it was abusive and traumatic. The applicant and the prosecutrix have been continuously interacting on the whatsapp for at least last six months prior to the latest incident on 24.12.2024. Their interaction appears to be cordial, mutual and voluntary. In respect of the first alleged incident of October 2024, she admittedly stayed in the room of the applicant with her own free will. As per the chats after the said incident, she appears to be in confusion due to her committed long distance relationship. But she never claimed to him in the chats that he had forcible sexual intercourse with her against her consent. On the contrary, she seems to be cordially interacting with him after the first alleged incident and planning to meet him in future. She again voluntarily and alone went to his room on 24.12.2024. In these circumstances, it can be inferred that she did not have any complain against the applicant in respect of the first alleged incident of October 2024. 8. In respect of the second alleged incident of 24.12.2024, from their whatsapp chat post said date, it can be inferred that she tacitly gave consent to have sexual intercourse with him. The applicant in his message asked her that if she was not interested she could have told him. In response, she conceded that he asked her but as the things happened very fast, she could not perceive the things in proper manner. Further, as per the CCTV footage of Uddipi restaurant, both the applicant and the prosecutrix together went for dinner to the said restaurant after the incident and in the said footage, they do not appear to be in any confrontation or dispute. In these circumstances, the defence raised by the accused cannot be held to be improbable and possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. The veracity of allegations made by the prosecutrix and the defence of the applicant can only be determined after the conclusion of trial. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant, if released on bail, may influence the prosecutrix can be addressed by invoking appropriate stringent conditions in that regard.””
Plainly speaking, the Bench then observes in para 16 that, “In the opinion of this Court, the said observations were not warranted and in the strict sense ought not to have been a ground for admitting Respondent No. 2 on bail. The observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim. The probabilities of the allegations cannot be commented in this manner as done by the learned ASJ while considering the application for bail. The allegations could not have been trivialised for the reason that victim after the first alleged incident again met the accused or went to the Respondent No. 2’s room alone.”
Notably, the Bench notes in para 17 mandating that, “Concededly, no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room.”
Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 18 that, “It is relevant to note that the observations had been made by the learned ASJ at the initial stages while the investigation was still underway. At that stage, the learned Court fell in error in giving findings in regard to complaint of the victim, essentially for the reason of the victim’s acquittance with the accused.”
Most significantly and most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 19 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “The trauma of the victim, in the opinion of this Court, ought not to have been trivialised by such observations. Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 20 that, “The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. : (2021) 16 SCC 179 held that the judges while granting relief to an accused in matters relating to sexual assault should refrain from making any observations regarding the character of the prosecutrix.”
In addition, the Bench observes in para 21 that, “Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the veracity of such observations made against the petitioner are to be seen during the course of trail and ought not to have been made at the time of admitting Respondent No. 2 on bail.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 22 that, “Therefore, in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (supra) the learned ASJ ought to have refrained from making the said observations against the petitioner.”
To be sure, the Bench notes in para 23 that, “It is pointed out that the accused pursuant to his release on bail, has not misused the liberty.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 24 that, “As noted above, the petitioner has not prayed that the order granting bail be set aside, but is challenging the impugned order to the extent that the observations may be deleted.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs and holds in para 25 that, “In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the observations made in paras 7 and 8 are set aside.”
Finally, we see that the Bench then concludes by directing and holding aptly in para 26 that, “The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
In sum, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court has made it indubitably clear in this leading case that a woman’s prior familiarity or cordial relationship with the accused cannot be used to blame her for alleged sexual assault committed against her. In other words, it has been made absolutely clear by the Delhi High Court that the accused will be held culpable in such cases if he commits sexual assault and cannot give a clean chit to himself by blaming exclusively a woman for it by citing prior familiarity or cordial relationship with the accused as a most convenient pretext or shield for committing sexual assault against her as it definitely cannot be ever justified under any circumstances whatsoever! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi