On Wednesday Delhi’s Saket court granted bail to a man accused of raping a woman he met on the Bumble dating app, under the pretext of marriage. This case has brought to the forefront the complexities of consent, the expectations from relationships initiated on dating platforms, and the legal interpretations of promises made within such relationships.
The court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the accused’s interim bail status for his sister’s wedding, the filing of the charge sheet during this period, and the broader implications for the accused’s right to liberty. The charge sheet, filed by the Delhi Police on January 25, 2024, after the initial complaint on December 10, 2023, led to the arrest of the accused, Gautam Kumar, on December 16, 2023. Kumar was granted interim bail on January 8, 2024, which was later extended.
The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sunil Gupta, required Kumar to furnish a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh along with two sureties of the same amount. The judge articulated,
“It is settled law that merely because the accused was out on interim bail does not entitle him to be released on regular bail still considering the facts and circumstances along with the valuable right to life and liberty of the applicant and the fact that there was no apprehension of the prosecution or the complainant that the applicant can influence/intimidate the witnesses, it will not be in the interest of justice to send the applicant in custody again.”
The defense argued that the relationship between Kumar and the complainant was consensual, initiated through the Bumble dating app, with no promise of marriage being made by the accused. This stance challenges the complainant’s expectations and the legal interpretation of consent when intertwined with promises of marriage. The defense further contended,
“Promises of marriage shouldn’t be anticipated in relationships originating from dating apps,”
highlighting a societal and legal dilemma regarding the nature of relationships formed online.
The complainant, on the other hand, insisted that Kumar made her feel like his wife, thereby implying a promise of marriage. Her consent for Kumar’s interim bail, granted upon the assurance of marriage by Kumar’s relatives, was a pivotal point in the bail hearing. However, the court disagreed with the complainant’s argument regarding the unfulfilled promise of marriage.
Alternatively, the State counsel disputed the admissibility of the bail request, citing the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which stipulate that bail cannot be awarded to an individual already under arrest.
The case also delves into the complainant’s past, noting her previous legal actions against another individual, which the defense used to question her credibility. However, the complainant’s lawyer argued against the notion that relationships initiated on dating apps like Bumble are solely for casual encounters, stating,
“dating apps like Bumble are used by people to meet and know each other, and it can’t be presumed that their only motive is to engage in casual sex.”
This ruling has ignited a broader conversation about the dynamics of online dating, the expectations of marriage, and the legal system’s role in navigating these modern relationships. The court’s decision underscores the complexity of consent and the legal challenges in cases involving promises of marriage, setting a precedent for future cases in the digital age.
CASE DETAILS
Case name- State v. Gautam Kumar
Appeared for the applicant – Advocate Namit Saxena.
Appeared for the State – Advocate Santosh Kumar
