SC rejects plea against HC order granting anticipatory bail to journalist in rape case

“We find no reason to interfere. The special leave petition is dismissed,” said a vacation bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi while rejecting the plea filed by the complainant. 

The high court had on May 13 granted anticipatory bail to journalist Varun Hiremath in the case. 

The complainant has alleged that she was raped by the accused at a five-star hotel in Chanakyapuri on February 20. 

Hiremath had approached the high court after his anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by a trial court here on March 12. 

Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner, argued in the apex court that accused had earlier absconded for 50 days and he also evaded the non-bailable warrant. 

“The question is of normal human conduct and behaviour. If a man and woman are in a room, the man makes a request and the woman complies with it, do we need to say anything more?,” the bench observed during the hearing, and added, “Whatever we are saying is limited to the purpose of cancellation of anticipatory bail only and we are not going into the larger question of consent at this stage”. 

While referring to the amendments in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Ramakrishnan said the penetrative act was without the consent of the woman. 

The senior counsel argued that the woman had said “no” multiple times but the accused forcibly penetrated her. 

In her plea filed in the top court, the petitioner has alleged that the accused has not faced custodial interrogation even for a day in the case despite not co-operating in the police investigation. 

“By a minute, critical and erroneous assessment of the section 164 statement of the complainant-petitioner, and a summary evaluation of the nature of ‘consent’ at a stage where the accused has not even faced a day’s custodial interrogation, the high court has erroneously granted anticipatory bail in such heinous offences as rape and assault,” said the plea, drawn by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. 

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) deals with recording of confession and statement before a magistrate. 

The petitioner said that after the high court had on April 9 granted him interim protection from arrest, the accused had appeared before the investigating authority. 

It claimed that the FIR and section 164 CrPC statement of the complainant “both categorically record that the petitioner pushed him away multiple times and that she also vehemently said no”. 

The counsel for the accused had earlier claimed before the trial court that there was a history of sexual relationship between the complainant and the journalist. 

The accused's counsel had also highlighted WhatsApp and Instagram chats between the complainant and the accused before the trial court "in order to show the love and passion between them". 

The trial court, while rejecting his anticipatory bail plea, had said that consent cannot be implied from the complainant's previous experiences with the accused and if the woman stated in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not. 

On the basis of the woman's complaint, an FIR under IPC sections 376 (punishment for rape), 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) was registered at the Chanakyapuri Police Station here.