New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, while refusing to grant bail to a man accused of raping a married woman, said the consent given for sexual relations cannot be construed as consent to capture and post inappropriate videos on social media platforms and does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a bail plea filed by a man accused of raping a married woman and creating inappropriate videos of the complainant and also her minor daughter and uploading those inappropriate videos on social media.
Consent does not extend to misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments: High Court
“Even if the consent for sexual relations had been given at any point of time by the complainant, such consent cannot, in any manner, be construed as consent to capture and post her inappropriate videos on social media platforms. Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments or their depiction in an inappropriate and derogatory manner,” Justice Sharma said.
What did the accused submit?
The counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the complainant woman was in a consensual relationship with the accused and she had taken loan from him and it is a case of a long friendly relationship between them turning sour due to a dispute over money and, since she was unable to repay the loan, this false complaint has been lodged. The counsel further submitted that since she herself had entered into a consensual relationship with the accused despite being married and having children, she cannot accuse the accused of having sexually assaulted her.
What did the complainant say?
The complainant woman alleged that while she had put her trust in the accused as they had developed friendship with each other, he had started threatening her that in case she will not show her body parts inappropriately to him during the video calls, he will commit suicide and put the blame on her.
Subsequent sexual encounters were no longer consensual: High Court
The High Court said that even if the first episode of the sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused had been consensual, the subsequent acts of the accused were clearly rooted in coercion and blackmail and therefore, the subsequent sexual encounters were no longer consensual but were carried out under duress, with the complainant being put in fear of public humiliation and reputational damage.
“Thus, while the first sexual encounter may have been consensual, the subsequent ones were allegedly based on blackmail, with the accused taking advantage of the videos to exert control over the complainant. The accused’s actions in preparing the videos and using them to manipulate and sexually exploit the complainant prima-facie reflects a strategy of abuse and exploitation, transcending any initial consensual interaction”, the High Court said.
Prima facie appears that accused had exploited relationship under guise of a loan transaction: High Court
“The accused’s conduct transcended the boundaries of a mere friendship. The relationship between the complainant and the accused cannot be termed as a “friendship simpliciter” wherein financial assistance was extended by one friend to another. Instead, it prima facie appears that the accused had exploited this relationship under the guise of a loan transaction. A loan arrangement, even between friends, does not entitle one party to exploit the other’s vulnerability or dignity,” the High Court added while denying bail to the accused.
The High Court also said that the attempt to weaponize the complainant’s marital status and professional background to diminish the gravity of the allegations is unacceptable.
