Evolving Jurisprudence of Sexual Consent: A Landmark Judgment in Jammu and Kashmir

In a pivotal ruling that underscores the evolving landscape of sexual consent jurisprudence in India, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar recently rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of rape under the false promise of marriage. This decision, delivered on May 30, 2025, marks a significant moment in the legal discourse surrounding sexual offenses, particularly in the context of relationships initiated through social media.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR filed at Police Station Anantnag, invoking Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainant alleged that the accused, Shakir-ul-Hassan, had cultivated a close and intimate relationship with her since 2021, during which he promised marriage and cohabited with her both in Anantnag and Delhi. The relationship, characterized by emotional and financial manipulation, escalated to a point where the complainant claimed she was sexually assaulted multiple times under the guise of a formal gathering.

The allegations included that the accused had publicly and privately introduced her as his wife, borrowed a substantial sum of Rs 10 lakhs for educational purposes, and engaged in sexual relations with her, all while maintaining the pretense of an eventual marriage. The situation took a darker turn when, after confronting the accused about his broken promises, the complainant alleged that his family members assaulted and threatened her.

Legal Arguments and Counterclaims

In response to the FIR, the petitioner and his brothers sought to quash the charges, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant had a history of criminal behavior, including theft. They contended that the complaint was retaliatory, stemming from a prior case of criminal intimidation filed by the accused against her. The defense further claimed that the complainant had trespassed into their home and demanded a significant sum of money to drop her marriage claims.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that a mere breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape under the law, asserting that the FIR was filed without a clear directive from a Magistrate.

The Court’s Judgment

Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a comprehensive judgment, upheld the registration of the FIR against the primary accused while quashing the charges against the family members. The Court found that the allegations against the brothers did not establish their knowledge or involvement in the alleged offense, thus deeming further prosecution an abuse of legal process.

In addressing the primary accused, the Court found substantial merit in the complainant’s claims. It noted that the accused had engaged with her through social media, maintained a prolonged relationship while projecting intentions of marriage, and seemingly extracted sexual favors under false pretenses. The Court dismissed the defense’s arguments, emphasizing that the sequence of events—where the complainant confronted the accused about his broken promises, leading to a counter-complaint—undermined the petitioner’s claims of innocence.

Implications of the Ruling

Justice Dhar highlighted the gravity of the charges under Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalizes rape by deceitful means. The judgment emphasized that anticipatory bail in such cases cannot be treated as an automatic right. The Court underscored the sensitive nature of the allegations and the early stage of the investigation, stressing the importance of preserving electronic evidence to establish intent and the extent of deceit.

The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to balance personal liberty with societal interests and the dignity of victims. By prioritizing the collection of digital evidence, the Court aims to prevent the destruction of crucial information that could substantiate the complainant’s claims.

Conclusion

This landmark judgment not only sets a precedent in the application of the new BNS framework but also sends a clear message regarding the seriousness with which the judiciary treats offenses of sexual abuse under deceit. The evolving judicial emphasis on digital evidence in cases involving online relationships reflects a broader recognition of the complexities of modern interactions and the potential for exploitation.

As society grapples with the implications of digital communication on personal relationships, this ruling stands as a significant step toward ensuring justice for victims of sexual offenses, encouraging them to come forward without fear of retribution. The High Court’s decision marks a critical juncture in the ongoing dialogue about consent, deception, and the legal protections available to individuals navigating the complexities of modern relationships.