The SC Refused To Interfere In The Delhi HC Order Granting Journalist Varun Hiremath Anticipatory Bail In A Rape Case

FACTS

• Varun Hiremath was accused of sexually abusing the woman in a Delhi hotel in February.
• He was charged under IPC Sections 376, 342, and 509 based on the woman’s complaint
• Hiremath's bail application was denied by the Patiala House Court in Delhi on March 12. It had stated that the complainant's permission could not be inferred from a previous sexual encounter with the accused.
• After Hiremath contested the lower court's judgment, the Delhi High Court granted him anticipatory bail stating that the accused's demands could not be regarded as coercion or fear.
• The complainant then challenged the Delhi High Court's decision in the Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

• Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, who is representing the petitioner, told the court that Hiremath avoided arrest for 50 days and that his family left their home despite non-bailable warrants being put on their door.
• She further stated that each conduct requires unequivocal consent, according to the Indian Penal Code.

COURT’S ORDER

• The bench responded that Ramakrishnan's point was a wider subject that may be decided later, and it made it clear to the counsel that the case under consideration was solely for bail cancellation.
• The Court further stated, "Our question is, purely for purpose of bail only, a question of normal human conduct and understanding". "If a man and woman are in a room, and man makes a request and woman complies with it, do we need to say anything more at this stage?"
• The Supreme Court declined to overturn a Delhi High Court order granting journalist Varun Hiremath anticipatory bail in a rape case

CONSENT UNDER SECTION 375

• According to Section 375, consent is defined as an unequivocal voluntary agreement when a woman expresses her willingness to conduct a certain act by verbal or nonverbal communication.
• Choice, not will, is the central concept of consent. If the consent is not freely given, the other party may be held criminally liable.
• If consent is gained through misrepresentation, deception, or error while having sexual activity with a woman, such consent will not be considered genuine, and the accused can still be held accountable for rape.
• It would be a cognizable offence that is non-bailable and non-compoundable. This would result in a minimum of seven years in prison, with the possibility of life imprisonment and a fine.

What do you think about the anticipatory bail given to Varun Hiremath by High Court? Share your views in the comment section below!