Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Doctor Accused of Repeated Rape, Rules Consensual Relationship Does Not Imply Consent to Each Specific Sexual Act
Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail in Serious Rape Case, Cites Missing Mobile Phone, Deleted Instagram Chats and Demonstrated Investigative Need for Effective Custodial Interrogation
Facts
Akshay Aditya, a postgraduate surgery student at Patna Medical College Hospital, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No. 0164/2026, registered at Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi, alleging rape, deceitful inducement to sexual intercourse, assault and intimidation under BNS Sections 64(1), 69, 115(2) and 351(2); Section 64(2)(m), concerning repeated rape, was subsequently added. The adult complainant alleged forcible intercourse on 21 December 2025, 8 March 2026 and 3 June 2026, an attempted incident on 11 April 2026, and threats of self-harm to silence her. After an earlier arrest attempt failed to secure transit remand, the Sessions Court refused pre-arrest bail. The High Court granted temporary protection on 17 August 2026, later extended; the State sought its vacation on emerging electronic evidence.
Issues
Whether the existence of a romantic relationship and a purported genuine promise of marriage undermined specific allegations of intercourse without consent; whether joining investigation removed the need for custodial interrogation; whether missing and deleted digital communications, alongside location records and messages, justified refusal of anticipatory bail and vacation of earlier interim protection; and how BNS Sections 64 and 69 differ.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant asserted a voluntary relationship known to both families: the complainant booked hotels, travelled to Patna and proposed alternative arrangements for their future together. He maintained that an unfulfilled bona fide marriage promise was not deception and denied all allegations of force. He pointed to repeated participation in investigation, medical examination, production of account credentials and seizure of his current phone to argue custody was unnecessary. He claimed his original handset was snatched during a June 2026 assault and that Instagram messages had been deleted before the FIR. He also alleged that the FIR was retaliatory to criminal proceedings he had initiated in Patna.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and complainant relied on her Section 183 BNSS statement, hotel documentation, CDR/location data and communications said to contain admissions or expressions of remorse. They emphasised separate allegations of forced intercourse and threats, not merely a failed marriage promise. They questioned the unexplained absence of the original handset and deletion of Instagram exchanges, contending that forensic recovery, confrontation with inconsistencies and custodial interrogation remained necessary. Prior cooperation, they argued, did not create an entitlement to pre-arrest bail.
Analysis of the Law
Under Section 63 BNS, consent entails unequivocal voluntary willingness to a specific sexual act: agreement to a relationship is not consent to intercourse on every occasion. Section 64 addresses rape, including acts allegedly committed against the woman’s will; Section 69 is expressly residual and applies to deceitful intercourse “not amounting to” rape. A false marriage promise requires bad faith from inception and a direct nexus to the decision to engage in intercourse, but that question cannot negate a distinct allegation of actual force. In considering Section 482 BNSS, the Court weighs prima facie material, offence gravity, investigative needs and liberty. Joining investigation, or contesting the need for custody, is not dispositive of anticipatory bail.
Precedent Analysis
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, distinguishes an initially dishonest marriage promise from a subsequent inability to marry. Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., (2022) 17 SCC 391, and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 INSC 725, reject the proposition that cooperation or lack of custodial necessity by itself warrants anticipatory bail. State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, recognises the investigative value of custodial questioning. Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379, and Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, address judicial restraint in granting pre-arrest relief in grave cases. CBI v. Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427, stresses balancing liberty with fair investigation.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Sachin Datta considered the allegation of forcible intercourse on specified dates independently of whether the broader relationship had been consensual. The complainant’s recorded account and the location, hotel and messaging material disclosed a prima facie case; bookings and visits did not answer alleged non-consent to particular acts. The applicant’s assertion that his phone containing the relationship’s entire record had been snatched was unsupported by a police complaint or documented tracing attempts; the hospital slip recorded only an alleged assault. Deleted Instagram conversations and conflicting explanations justified further forensic inquiries. Cooperation under interim protection could not foreclose later custodial examination. The August order was temporary, not an adjudicated grant of anticipatory bail, and subsequent investigative material warranted its withdrawal.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed Bail Application No. 3355 of 2026 and allowed the State’s application, Crl.M.A. 30416/2026, vacating interim protection granted on 17 August 2026. The applicant remains free to surrender and seek regular bail, to be determined independently and without being influenced by the observations in this order. The Court clarified that the related writ petition and its request for interim relief would be considered separately; its reasoning was limited to the pre-arrest bail stage and expressed no final view on guilt. The complainant’s identity must not be disclosed.
Case: Akshay Aditya v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3355/2026; Crl.M.A. 30416/2026; CNR DLHC010380362026
Judge: Justice Sachin Datta
Date: 30 October 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail refused; interim protection vacated; regular bail remedy expressly preserved.
