"She Herself Invited Trouble": Allahabad HC's Order in Rape Case Raises Alarm

In a decision that has sparked widespread debate, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a rape accused, asserting that the complainant "herself invited trouble" by accompanying the accused after consuming alcohol. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, in his March 11th order, noted that the woman, a postgraduate student, was "competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act".

In September 2024, the woman, along with her female friends, visited a bar in Delhi's Hauz Khas, where they met the accused and other male acquaintances. They consumed alcohol until around 3:00 am, after which the woman, feeling intoxicated, agreed to accompany the accused to his relative's apartment in Gurgaon, where she alleges that he raped her twice.

The court's order stated, "This court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. A similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement." 

As Per Legal Reasoning 

The Allahabad High Court suggested that her actions indicated that she had provided her consent, emphasising the victim's educational background and maturity. The court further noted that the medical examination revealed that her hymen was torn, but it did not provide a conclusive opinion regarding the possibility of any sexual assault.

However, despite the legal reasoning, this perception has drawn significant criticism from legal experts and women's rights activists, who argue that the court's reasoning perpetuates victim-blaming and undermines the fact that there are several complexities related to consent, especially in situations that involve intoxication.

The accused, who was arrested in December 2024, claimed that the woman willingly accompanied him and that the sexual encounter that happened between them was completely consensual. He denied taking her to a relative's flat or committing rape.

During the proceedings of the court, it was also argued that the accused has been languishing in jail since December 2024, without having any criminal history, and that if he were to be released on bail, he would 'not misuse the liberty of bail and would only cooperate in the early disposal of the case'.

On the contrary, the bail plea was opposed by the additional government advocate for the state in light of the FIR; however, he did dispute the above factual aspect of the matter (on behalf of the applicant).

Following all these submissions, the court granted bail to the accused applicant.

"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed."

Calls For Reform

Prior to this, in a separate incident, the Supreme Court recently cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to individuals accused of gang-raping a 14-year-old. The Supreme Court of India criticised the High Court's disregard for legal provisions and emphasised the necessity of hearing the survivor in such cases.

These incidents are an example of a pattern of judicial decisions that have raised concerns about the treatment of sexual assault survivors recently. Many advocates are calling for comprehensive judicial reforms, including:

• Mandatory gender-sensitivity training for judges

• A re-evaluation of how consent and victim behavior are perceived in court proceedings.

The Allahabad High Court's recent bail order serves as a sharp reminder of the challenges that the survivors face while seeking justice and the urgent need for a more empathetic and informed judicial approach to cases of sexual violence.