Does a long relationship, even an engagement, amount to consent? Not in the view of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which has refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of assaulting his partner.
Shimla: Refusing anticipatory bail to a man booked under Sections 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on October 12, 2026 said that even a relationship does not give a licence to ravish a woman sexually [Tarun Bharota v. State of H.P. and Another].
The order was reserved by Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh on October 9, 2026 and pronounced on October 12, 2026. Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel with Advocate Swetima Dogra appeared for the applicant, Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria for the State, and Advocate Sheetal Vyas for the complainant.
The complaint behind the application
FIR No. 130 of 2026 was registered on August 25, 2026 at Police Station Manali, District Kullu. The complainant, who had been the applicant’s partner for about ten years and to whom he was engaged, alleged that on August 23, 2026 he physically and sexually assaulted her, burned her with a lighter and choked her.
The applicant claimed he had been falsely implicated and pointed to the delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant relied on medico-legal evidence and alleged that he tried to intimidate her and other witnesses. These are allegations only: they are untested, the Court has expressed no final view on the merits, and the applicant is presumed innocent.
Why the Court said no
The medico-legal report recorded injuries and burn marks, which the Court found prima facie supportive of the allegations at this stage. Nor did the delay in reporting weigh heavily with it: given the nature of the relationship between the two, the delay may not be said to be fatal. On the central question, the Court said:
Even if in a relationship, it did not give him a license to ravish the prosecutrix sexually
The Court weighed the nature of the offences and the applicant’s general conduct, including the alleged intimidation of the complainant after protection was given to her, and held that he was not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The petition was dismissed at this stage.
The medico-legal certificate format
The revised medico-legal certificate (MLC) format, the Court noted, has no column for the nature and probable duration of injuries. As an expert, a doctor must record the probable duration of an injury, it observed, and without it the MLC loses its essence. The State was advised to rectify the format, either by making appropriate changes or by going back to the older one, and a copy of the order is to go to the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police. In this case, the prosecution is to obtain the opinion of the doctor who issued the MLC on the probable duration of the injuries.
What the order reaffirms
A subsisting relationship, even a long one that includes an engagement, is not consent to sexual acts, and at the pre-arrest bail stage a delay in reporting is weighed in light of that relationship. The direction on the MLC format could also change how injuries are recorded in medico-legal certificates across the State.
Case Title: Tarun Bharota v. State of H.P. and Another [Cr.MP(M) No. 1774 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date of Order: October 12, 2026 (reserved on October 9, 2026)
Appearances: Senior Advocate N.S. Chandel with Advocate Swetima Dogra for the applicant; Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria for the State; Advocate Sheetal Vyas for the complainant.
