Consensual relationship between educated adults cannot be characterized as rape despite allegations of blackmailing.

The petitioner, a gym trainer, sought regular bail in FIR No. 832/2025 (PS Seemapuri) involving charges under Sections 308(2), 351(2), 64(2)(m), and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecutrix, a 30-year-old practicing advocate, alleged that the petitioner administered a laced drink, rendered her unconscious, and raped her at a hotel in Ghaziabad.

She further alleged that the petitioner blackmailed her with objectionable photographs to extort money and commit repeated sexual assaults.

The petitioner contended the relationship was entirely consensual and turned sour, noting that the prosecutrix was aware of his marital status and age.

The petitioner has been in custody since November 2025.

1. Whether the allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse and blackmail are prima facie sustainable for the purpose of denying bail given the evidence of a romantic relationship.

2. Whether the marital status of the accused or the different religious backgrounds of the parties are valid grounds to deny liberty under the law.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of regular bail, emphasizing the protection of individual liberty.

It distinguished between legal offenses and moral transgressions, holding that morality must be kept separate from the determination of a criminal offense.

The court also relied on the evidentiary standards for "consent" in cases involving educated adults, noting the relevance of the prosecutrix’s professional background as an advocate and her age.

The Court found the prosecutrix's version prima facie inconsistent. It noted the practical difficulty of the prosecutrix traveling a significant distance from Delhi to Ghaziabad while allegedly unconscious.

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the petitioner’s mobile phone contained no "objectionable" or nude pictures used for blackmail, but rather 16 photographs and two videos depicting a happy, consensual romantic relationship.

The Court observed that the prosecutrix is a mature, educated professional (practicing advocate) who did not allege a false promise of marriage.

Regarding the State's opposition based on the petitioner's extra-marital affair and the parties' different religions, the Court rejected these arguments, stating that communal factors are irrelevant and that moral judgments regarding adultery should not prejudice the right to bail.

The petitioner was directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the bail proceedings and shall not influence the final trial.