A police officer’s position of dominance vitiates claimed consent, defeating anticipatory bail in an alleged rape case.

The appellant invoked Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 30 April 2026 by which the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jashpur, rejected his application for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 67/2026, registered under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant established contact with her through Facebook in 2023, induced her into a relationship, and repeatedly subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse, resulting in pregnancy and an alleged abortion.

She further alleged that he threatened and harassed her, followed her, circulated her photographs, and obtained ₹2,00,000 from her and her brother on the pretext of arranging land.

The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, that both parties were majors, and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately three years.

He also argued that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not prima facie established because there was no material showing that the alleged acts were committed on account of the prosecutrix’s caste.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations, the prosecutrix’s status as a Scheduled Tribe widow, the appellant’s position as a police official, the medical material, and the seizure of her caste certificate.

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act in view of the allegations of repeated forcible sexual intercourse, pregnancy, abortion, threats, harassment, circulation of photographs, and monetary exploitation?

2. Whether the appellant could rely on the alleged consensual nature and duration of the relationship to obtain anticipatory bail?

3. Whether the case was distinguishable from Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine All 8063, where anticipatory bail was granted in the context of a prolonged consensual relationship?

The Court applied Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, which permits an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail under the Act, along with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC concerning repeated rape and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

In assessing anticipatory bail, the Court considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the likelihood that the defence of consent was affected by the accused’s position of authority.

The Court held that a police official possesses systemic and dominant authority, and that a victim may comply because of fear of legal retaliation; consequently, the appellant could not, at the anticipatory-bail stage, rely on the alleged consensual relationship as a complete defence.

The Court distinguished Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine All 8063, on the basis that the present allegations involved repeated forcible intercourse and subsequent exploitation and harassment rather than a straightforward prolonged consensual relationship.

The Court treated the allegations of repeated forcible sexual intercourse, pregnancy followed by abortion, threats, harassment, circulation of photographs, and extraction of ₹2,00,000 as grave allegations warranting a cautious approach to anticipatory bail.

It gave particular weight to the appellant’s status as a police official, reasoning that his institutional authority and dominant position could undermine the prosecutrix’s free will; therefore, the alleged continuation of the relationship could not, at that stage, be accepted as proof of genuine consent.

The Court also considered the investigation material, including the medical examination recording an old ruptured hymen and habituation to sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix’s Scheduled Tribe status, and the seizure of her caste certificate.

These circumstances, taken together with the alleged threats and exploitation, distinguished the case from Dinesh Kumar Srivastava and justified refusal of pre-arrest protection.

The appeal/application was accordingly rejected, and anticipatory bail was refused in Crime No. 67/2026 registered at Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.