Anticipatory bail granted where significant delay and prosecutrix’s superior professional status suggest consensual relations.

The petitioner, a school teacher, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 348/2025 registered at PS Shaheen Bagh

The prosecutrix, a married lady and member of the school’s managing committee where the petitioner is employed, alleged that the petitioner raped her at her residence in October 2023 and July 2024

She further alleged that on July 14, 2025, the petitioner pressured her for further sexual favors, leading her to inform her husband and lodge the FIR

The petitioner contended the relationship was consensual and submitted an audio recording (pendrive) in which the prosecutrix allegedly admitted her involvement

Interim protection from arrest had been in place since October 9, 2025

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under the circumstances of a long-standing alleged relationship and the professional hierarchy between the parties

Section 64(1) (punishment for rape) and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court also assessed the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail based on the probability of consensual relations between adults and the impact of delayed reporting on the credibility of the prosecution's case

The court observed that the prosecutrix is an adult who occupies a "dominating position" as a member of the school management committee relative to the petitioner’s role as a teacher

It highlighted significant temporal gaps in the allegations: a nine-month interval between the first and second incidents and a further year of "complete silence" before the complaint was filed

Upon playing the audio pendrive in court, the bench noted that while forensic validation is pending, the recording contained admissions by the prosecutrix regarding the sexual relationship

The State (APP) did not offer a strong argument to oppose the bail

Consequently, the court found that the history of the relationship and the prosecutrix’s status suggested a lack of necessity for custodial interrogation

It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO

The court further ordered that the petitioner must not contact the prosecutrix in any manner