Rape on promise of marriage: Supreme Court upholds bail to accused, says victim was already married

The Supreme Court on July 16 declined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to a man accused of raping a married woman on the false promise of marriage [XXXX vs. State of Bihar].

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said that the woman had herself committed an offence by engaging in a sexual relationship outside her marriage.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the woman against a May 21 order of the Patna High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused.

The Bench noted that the complainant was already married with children when the relationship began, and questioned her participation in the continued physical relationship despite knowing her own marital status.

In response to the submission that the accused called the woman to hotels multiple times for sexual encounters, the Bench remarked that she was a mature adult who had knowingly entered into an extramarital relationship.

“Why did you go to the hotels repeatedly on his request? You are a mature person, and you understand the relationship that you were building outside marriage. You have also committed an offence,” the Court said.

Notably, the top Court in 2018 had decriminalised adultery. It had said that Section 497 of the IPC (adultery) was manifestly arbitrary, violating the right to equality by discriminating based on gender.

According to the petitioner’s plea, she became acquainted with the accused in 2016 through social media. In July 2022, he allegedly called her to a rest house in Sultanganj, where she was administered intoxicants through food and drink. Upon regaining consciousness, she allegedly found herself naked and sexually assaulted. The man then allegedly threatened her with objectionable videos and photographs, coercing her to maintain the relationship under continued assurances of marriage.

The woman stated that she filed for divorce from her husband in 2024 under pressure from the accused. Despite the divorce being granted on March 6, 2025, the accused allegedly refused to marry her and disowned any relationship. On March 17, when she visited his home with her children, she was allegedly assaulted, confined and threatened.

An FIR was lodged on April 3, 2025 at the Jamui Mahila police station invoking provisions under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 64(1), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused initially approached the Additional Sessions Judge at Jamui for anticipatory bail but his plea was rejected on May 6.

He then approached the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which granted him anticipatory bail on May 21. The High Court had taken note that the petitioner and the accused had no physical relationship after her divorce and that the case, at its core, involved a consensual relationship.

Challenging this, the woman approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had failed to consider the full extent of the alleged coercion, exploitation and threats. However, the Court refused to interfere, effectively upholding the High Court’s order.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Rajivkumar