Court Grants Bail to Rape Accused, Says Woman ‘Invited Trouble’ by Drinking

Woman Alleges She Was Raped Twice, Touched Inappropriately

April 11, 2025

The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a rape case, citing controversial reasoning. In his order, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh appeared to shift blame onto the complainant—a postgraduate student—stating that she had chosen to drink alcohol late at night in a pub and to accompany the accused.

The woman had filed a police complaint in September 2024 stating that she went to a bar with friends, where they all drank alcohol, according to The Hindu and News18. She said she became heavily intoxicated and needed help standing. In that condition, she agreed to go with the accused, identified as Nischal Chandak, thinking she was heading to his house in Noida to rest. But, according to her, he took her instead to a relative’s house in Gurgaon and raped her twice. She also alleged that he had touched her inappropriately on the way.

The accused applied for bail, and his legal team argued that the incident did not amount to rape. They said it may have been a consensual sex, pointing out that the woman had gone along with the accused willingly. His lawyers also said that Chandak had been in jail since December 2024 and had no criminal background. They assured the court he would cooperate with the investigation if released.

Justice Singh accepted the bail application and, in doing so, made a series of remarks.

He stated that the woman was an adult and a master’s degree student, which, in his view, meant she was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. He concluded that even if everything she said was taken as true, it could still be said that she had brought the situation upon herself and was partly responsible for it.

The judge used the phrase “she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same” to describe her role in what had happened.

The court also referred to her statement that she stayed at the bar until around 3 AM and consumed alcohol voluntarily. It appeared to consider these details as part of the justification for saying she shared responsibility. The court also noted that although her medical report recorded a torn hymen, the doctor did not give a conclusive opinion on whether a sexual assault had occurred.

Critics have raised concern that such observations risk normalising the idea that victims can be held accountable for being sexually assaulted, particularly if they had consumed alcohol or were out late at night.

In Indian law, consent in the context of sexual activity must be clear, voluntary and informed. It cannot be assumed from silence, past relationships or the absence of physical resistance. The law defines consent as an unequivocal and voluntary agreement, communicated through words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal expression. This agreement must be given specifically for that act, at that time, and by a person who is in a condition to make a conscious choice.

Consent is considered invalid if it is obtained through fear, coercion, deception or misunderstanding. For example, if a person is misled into believing something false—such as a false promise of marriage—any consent given under that belief may not be legally recognised. Similarly, if someone is intoxicated, unconscious or otherwise unable to understand the nature and consequences of the act, the law presumes that they cannot give valid consent.

The courts have also made it clear that even within relationships or marriages, consent cannot be taken for granted. Each sexual act must be preceded by clear and willing agreement.