Skip to main content

"She Herself Invited Trouble": Allahabad High Court Blames Rape Survivor, Grants Bail to Accused

Once again, a Controversial judgement by Allahabad High Court!

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a woman had "invited trouble" and was partly responsible for the alleged rape committed against her, while granting bail to the accused in the case [Nischal Chandak v. State of UP].

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh made the remark while considering the bail plea of a man arrested in December 2024 for allegedly raping a woman he met at a bar in Delhi’s Hauz Khas.

The Court stated, "Even if the victim’s allegations are taken as true, it can be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. Her statement reflects a similar stance. While her hymen was found torn in the medical examination, the doctor did not confirm sexual assault."

Case Background

The incident dates back to September 2024, when the survivor, a student at a prominent Noida university, visited a bar in Delhi with friends. There, she met the accused and other male acquaintances.

In her police complaint, she stated that she had consumed alcohol and felt intoxicated, after which the accused persistently asked her to accompany him. They stayed at the bar until 3 AM, after which she agreed to go with him to his home to rest.

However, she alleged that instead of taking her to his Noida residence, he took her to a relative’s flat in Gurgaon, where he sexually assaulted her. Following this, she filed an FIR with Noida police, leading to the accused’s arrest on December 11, 2024.

Accused’s Defense & Court’s Observations

The accused, in his bail application, claimed that the woman had willingly gone with him and that their interaction was consensual. He denied taking her to a relative’s flat or committing rape.

The Court noted that the survivor, being a postgraduate student, was capable of understanding the "morality and implications of her actions." Considering the circumstances, evidence, and arguments, the judge ruled in favor of bail, stating that the accused had made a "fit case for bail."



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more