Court Highlights Prima Facie Evidence, Electronic Records, and Inconsistencies in Accused's Account; Interim Protection Vacated Pending Further Investigation
In a significant judgment dated October 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Mr. Justice Sachin Datta, dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Akshay Aditya, a postgraduate medical student, in a grave rape case registered under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 69, 351(2), and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The FIR, lodged at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin, alleges forcible sexual intercourse against the will of the complainant on multiple identified dates, supported by various independent pieces of evidence.
The complainant, an adult woman, alleged that Akshay Aditya induced her into a relationship by promising marriage, which he did not intend to fulfill. On December 21, 2025, March 8, 2026, and June 3, 2026, the accused is said to have forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance. Additional allegations include attempts to coerce her into consuming unknown substances and threats of self-harm to suppress disclosure.
The complainant's statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) corroborates her allegations. Medical examination records and Call Detail Records (CDRs), hotel guest logs, and electronic communications, including WhatsApp and Instagram messages, further substantiate her claims. Notably, the accused's own WhatsApp messages reflect remorse and admissions, with phrases such as "I have destroyed a family" and "I hate myself," indicating acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
The applicant's defense hinged on asserting the consensual nature of the relationship, the complainant's active role in arranging hotel stays, and the contention that the promise of marriage was genuine but unfulfilled. He also claimed his earlier mobile phone, which allegedly contained crucial evidence, was forcibly snatched during an assault, an incident for which no police complaint has been produced.
The Court meticulously examined the legal framework, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court underlined that the mere absence of custodial interrogation necessity does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail. The investigation is ongoing, and the accused's version was found inconsistent with the collected electronic evidence, raising serious concerns about suppression and deletion of material evidence.
Further, the Court distinguished between sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS and rape under Section 64 BNS. Since the FIR specifically alleges forcible sexual intercourse against the complainant's will on identified dates, the case squarely falls under the more serious Section 64. The residual Section 69 does not dilute these allegations.
The Court also noted that the accused's conduct, including the unexplained disappearance of his earlier mobile phone and deletion of Instagram communications, justifies custodial interrogation to enable a fair and thorough investigation. Consequently, the interim protection previously granted to the applicant was vacated, and the bail application dismissed.
Justice Datta made it clear that dismissal of anticipatory bail does not bar the accused from surrendering before the competent court and seeking regular bail, which would be decided in accordance with law. The complainant's identity was ordered to be kept confidential to protect her privacy.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in serious sexual offence cases under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a robust investigation and protection of victims.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in rape case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Allegations of forcible sexual intercourse on specific dates, supported prima facie by statement under Section 183 BNSS, CDR/location records, hotel records and applicant's own electronic communications - Mere joining of investigation or plea that custodial interrogation is unnecessary is not by itself a ground to grant anticipatory bail - Section 69 BNS is residual and does not dilute specific allegations of rape under Section 64 BNS - Interim protection vacated where investigation disclosed deletion/non-availability of electronic evidence and inconsistencies in applicant's version.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 69, 351(2), 115(2); Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 120
Akshay Aditya v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006546
