SC warns married woman accusing man of rape: ‘You also committed an offence by having relation outside marriage’

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to cancel the anticipatory bail of a man accused of raping a married woman on the false promise of marriage. Instead, the court warned the woman that she could also face prosecution for having a sexual relationship with another man while still married.

Bench questions woman's role in the relationship

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh told the woman’s lawyer, “You are a married woman with two children. You are a mature person, and you understand the relationship you were getting into outside the marriage.”

When the lawyer said that the man had repeatedly called the woman to hotels and rest houses on the pretext of marrying her, the court asked, “Why did you go to the hotels repeatedly at his beckoning? You very well understand that you also have committed an offence by having a sexual relationship outside the marriage.”

High Court order upheld, anticipatory bail stands

The Patna High Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to Ankit Barnwal. The trial court had rejected his bail plea after the woman lodged a complaint accusing him of rape. The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s decision, noting that no sexual activity between the two had taken place after the woman’s divorce.

Timeline of events in the case
According to the complaint, the woman and Barnwal had been in a relationship since 2016 after meeting on social media. She claimed that Barnwal had pressured her to seek divorce from her husband, which was granted on March 6. The woman alleged that she asked Barnwal to marry her soon after the divorce, but he refused.

She then filed a complaint with Bihar police, accusing Barnwal of sexually exploiting her under the false promise of marriage. However, the high court observed that there was no record of any physical relationship between them after her divorce.

SC shifts focus to accountability
The Supreme Court’s observations shifted focus to the woman’s responsibility in continuing the relationship while still married. The court noted that she knowingly entered into the relationship and that her actions could also amount to an offence under the law.