The judiciary is entrusted to protect those subjected to violence and abuse; however, Indian courts have on many occasions shattered this trust in sexual assault cases by blaming victims and granting bail to perpetrators for reasons as outrageously absurd as suggesting marriage or tying Rakhis. In a yet another such absurd ruling, the Allahabad High Court blamed the rape victim for the crime against her. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court made the comment that ‘the victim invited trouble’ while granting bail to the accused.
The victim is a student at a popular university in Noida. The incident occurred in September 2024, when the victim had gone with her friends to a bar. At around 3 am, the victim was in an intoxicated state and upon insistence by the accused, she had agreed to go with him to his flat to rest. However, the victim had complained that instead of taking him to his nearby flat, the accused took him to a relative’s place in Gurgaon and raped her.
The High Court blamed the victim for ‘inviting trouble’ and held her responsible for the rape. “This Court is of the view that even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same. Similar stand has been taken by the victim in her statement. In her medical examination, her hymen was found torn, but the doctor did not give any opinion about the sexual assault,” a Single Bench observed, as it allowed the accused’s bail plea.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling not only sparked outrage among common people but also invited severe criticism from the Supreme Court. Frustrated with the High Court’s operations, Justice BR Gavai said, “What is happening in this High Court? Now this is another judge from the same High Court saying such things… Why make all these observations? One has to be very careful with these cases, which are so sensitive.”
This, however, is not the first case wherein the courts have come across as steeped in patriarchal prejudice. In fact, Indian courts have a disturbing history of granting bail to rapists or downplaying sexual assaults through bizarre reasoning, victim-blaming, sympathising with rape accused, even in POCSO cases wherein the victims are minor children. This is a compilation of such judicial ‘gems’ which demonstrate a deeply troubling mindset of ‘milords’ and how this mindset is advertently or inadvertently perpetuating a culture of impunity for sexual violence in India.
Grabbing minor’s breasts, breaking pyjama drawstring not attempt to rape but aggravated sexual assault: Allahabad High Court
In March 2025, the Allahabad High Court sparked controversy after it ruled that grabbing the breasts of a minor girl and breaking her pyjama drawstring is not an attempt to rape. The accusations against two “rape” accused were previously amended by the Allahabad High Court, which referred to their offence as “aggravated sexual assault” rather than an attempt at rape. Pawan and Akash were on trial for grabbing a minor girl’s breast and breaking the drawstring of her pyjamas. On 17th March 2025, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra rendered the decision in Criminal Revision No. 1449 of 2024. The two accused were initially charged under section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and section 18 (Punishment for attempt to commit an offence) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, it was ruled that later that the accused be put on trial under section 354-B (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) of the IPC along with sections 9/10 (aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.
“The specific allegation against Akash is that he tried to drag the victim beneath the culvert and broke the string of her pyjama. It is also not stated by witnesses that due to this act of the accused, the victim got naked or undressed. There is no allegation that accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim. In order to bring out a charge of attempt to rape the prosecution must establish that it had gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination,” the court said adding that the facts of the case and the accusations made against the accused hardly amounted to an attempt at rape.
Imagine, the accused allegedly dragged the victim, a minor girl, broke the drawstring of victim’s pyjama and yet, for the court it does not amount to attempt to rape. Penetrative sexual assault is rape, and what the court called ‘preparation’ should amount to attempt to rape, however, the Allahabad High Court deemed it as ‘aggravated sexual assault’.
The Supreme Court stepped in to take cognisance after the matter gained widespread condemnation from the public. The apex court called the Allahabad HC’s remarks insensitive. However, we will never know what punitive action the said author of the above insensitive order faced, because in India, judges are above accountability.
Bombay HC grants bail to man charged for raping a 14-year-old girl
On 17th February 2025, a 24-year-old man who was charged with raping a 14-year-old girl was granted bail by the Bombay High Court. The court noted that the victim ‘voluntarily’ stayed with the accused for four days and had ‘sufficient knowledge’ and ‘capacity’ to understand the ‘full consequence of her acts’. The decision was pronounced by the bench of Justice Milind Jadhav.
He took into account the underage girl’s claims that she had a consensual affair with the accused and added that she was conscious of her conduct. She had also mentioned that she spent more than three days and three nights with him. Additionally, he emphasised that although the penalties outlined in Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are severe, the court could nevertheless grant or deny bail in order to uphold the objectives of justice.
Sex with a minor is rape. A 14-year-old victim can be brainwashed, coerced or manipulated to give a statement in support of the perpetrator. But a judge in Bombay High Court decided that since the adult accused in the rape case is supported by the victim, he must be granted bail.
Rape accused man out on bail kidnaps 17-year-old girl again in Uttar Pradesh
In February 2025, a 22-year-old man named Asif alias Chhote Babu kidnapped a 17-year-old girl he was accused of raping in October 2023. The accused was out on bail when he kidnapped the girl again on 5th February from Uttar Pradesh’s Bhadohi. The accused booked under the POCSO Act was earlier arrested and jailed for 8 months before he secured bail. After coming out of jail, he kidnapped the girl, to continue the very crime he was jailed for.
‘Victim is mature enough’: Special POCSO court in Thane grants bail to accused who raped a 15-year-old girl
In April 2025, a Special POCSO court in Maharashtra’s Thane granted bail to a man accused of kidnapping and sexually abusing a 15-year-old girl. The court observed that the victim and the accused had a consensual ‘love affair’. Justice DS Deshmukh went on to assert that the minor girl was “mature enough” to understand the consequences of her act.
Odisha court grants bail to rapist, he comes out to murder the victim and chops her body into pieces
On 11th December 2024, the Odisha Police in Sundargarh district arrested an individual identified as Kunu Kishan for murdering a girl on 7th December. The accused was already on bail in the minor victim’s rape case. He was reported to have killed the girl to try and avoid getting convicted in the case. Following this, he cut her murdered body into various pieces and threw them around various parts of the district. Reports said that the accused had been jailed in August 2023 for raping the same victim girl (now deceased) when she was a minor. As per the police, during his months in jail, he planned to take revenge against the girl and execute the crime after being released on bail on 7th December.
It is said that the accused, after being released on bail, had asked the girl and her family to issue a statement in his favour so that he could be saved from conviction. However, the girl refused. Following this, he decided to take revenge against the girl. He was already enraged by the girl and her family for sending him to jail. He also had planned revenge against the girl when he was inside the jail.
The court’s decision to grant bail to the rape accused not only enabled him to interact with the victim and threaten her to give statement in his favour but also exact revenge.
Kerala HC quashed POCSO case after rapist ‘married’ victim, saying it would ‘disrupt their marriage’
In July 2024, the Kerala High Court quashed a POCSO case against an accused as the accused and the victim had got married. The 2021 criminal case was filed against the man for kidnapping and raping a 17-year-old victim. The duo is now married and has two children. Justice A Badharudeen opined that though there is no question of settlement in the rape cases, in this case the matter has been quashed on humanitarian grounds so that the couple’s peaceful family life is not disturbed.
“Settlement of cases including the offence of rape and POCSO Act offences is not permissible under law. However, in the instant case, though the 1st accused after maintaining a relationship with the minor victim, subjected her to sexual exploitation resulting in pregnancy, as of now, the 1st accused married the victim and now, they have been living happily with two children. In such cases, the tough nut standing in the way of settlement shall be crushed with humanitarian consideration as the hammer, to ensure the peaceful family living of the parties and most importantly to ensure the well-being of the children born to them,” the court said.
Although the court observed that a compromise or settlement is not allowed in POCSO cases, it decided to quash the case against the accused since criminal proceedings would ‘ruin the married life’ of the victim and the accused. For the court, marrying the victim of rape somehow absolved the crime of the rapist.
Madhya Pradesh: Man kills minor rape victim’s father and brother after coming out on bail
In March 2024, a 19-year-old man named Mukul Kumar murdered the father and 8-year-old brother of the girl he was accused of raping. The incident was brought to light when the 14-year-old rape survivor sent a voice message from her father’s phone to her grandfather immediately after the murders committed by their neighbour and the rape accused, Mukul Kumar. The accused killed the victim’s father, who was a railway employee and brother, with a sharp-edged weapon.
Madhya Pradesh HC ordered rape accused to get a Rakhi tied on his wrist by the victim to secure bail, order set aside after Supreme Court intervened
Back in July 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court shattered all the limits of decency and morality in justice as it ordered a man accused of sexual assault to get a Rakhi tied around his wrist by the victim, as a precondition for bail. The MP High Court’s decision raised eyebrows with people questioning how come the judiciary framed the rape accused as a ‘brother’ responsible for the honour or protecting the honour of the very girl he allegedly raped. This decision blatantly trivialised the assault, reinforced cultural stereotypes over justice for the victim. In 2021, however, the Supreme Court stayed this outrageous ruling.
When ex-CJI S A Bobde asked rape accused if he would marry his victim
In March 2021, a Supreme Court bench headed by then Chief Justice of India S A Bobde asked rape accused state government employee if he would marry the victim who happened to be the accused person’s relative. The accused had allegedly raped the girl when she was a minor. While hearing a petition against Bombay High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the accused, then CJI asked, “Will you marry her? We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise, you will say we are forcing you to marry her.”
While massive outrage erupted over Bobde’s remarks, with thousands of ‘concerned citizens’ coming together to demand an apology from the ex-CJI, Bobde clarified that his query was based on judicial records containing an undertaking from the man that he would marry the minor girl (the victim) after she turns 18.
The accused had told the court that initially he was willing to marry the victim, however, she refused, and later he got married to someone else. The SC bench comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanium granted interim protection from arrest to the accused person.
When Karnataka HC judge deemed rape victim ‘unbecoming’ saying her statement was ‘difficult to believe’
In the Rakesh B vs State of Karnataka case, the Karnataka High Court in July 2020, granted bail to the man accused of raping a woman because Justice Krishna S Dixit deemed the victim’s testimony ‘a bit difficult to believe’ and her behaviour somehow not consistent with that of an unwilling, terrified, and anguished victim.
The Karnataka HC judge also questioned the victim as to why she visited her officer as late as around 11 pm and why she did not object to consuming alcohol with the accused. In addition, the court also asked the victim why she allowed the accused to stay with her till morning. “The explanation offered by her that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep is unbecoming of an Indian woman… not the way our women react when they are ravished,” the judge asked.
Basically, the court suggested that rape victims should conform to emotional responses to appear credible, otherwise their plight is ‘difficult to believe’ and it becomes fine to blame the victim for having allowed the accused to stay with her or have alcohol. The court insinuated that if women allow men to be around them late at night, it is no less than taking a risk of getting raped and when the victim approaches court for justice, the very people responsible for ensuring her justice would judge whether the victim’s behaviour is that of an ‘ideal’ rape victim.
Conclusion
Callous remarks like ‘mature enough’, and allowing rapists to marry their victims put countless minor children in danger. It is not incomprehensible that sex with minor is rape. The courts, under any circumstances, citing ‘love affair’ in such cases, are insensitive and careless. Moreover, the courts granting bail to rapists who go on to kill, rape again worsens the situation for countless victims. Because one murder by an out on bail rapists sends a message to thousands of victims, driving it into their mind that not only they will face judges and authorities who raise questions on their ‘character’, they will risk murder and assault, because the same judges and authorities will allow the rapist to roam free in society.
There is this pattern wherein courts seem to be prioritising regressive norms, the accused’s supposed potential for ‘rehabilitation’ or arbitrary expectations of victim behaviour and social prejudices against women over justice. This problematic mindset entrenched in the judiciary perpetuates a culture of impunity for sexual violence in India where rape cases have only increased with over 30,000 cases reported in 2023 alone.
What further exacerbates the situation is the judiciary’s victim-blaming for their choices, including visiting a friend or not resisting ‘enough’. This way the courts shift accountability from perpetrators, undermine the trauma of the rape survivors while also eroding trust in India’s judicial system. Not to forget the 2016 Delhi High Court ruling wherein film director Mahmood Farooqui who was convicted in a rape case by a trial court was acquitted. While acquitting Farooqui, granting him the benefit of doubt, the Delhi HC noted, “Instances of woman behaviour are not unknown that a feeble ‘no’ may mean a ‘yes’.” Clearly, even the judiciary expects rape survivors to check certain boxes including appearing weak, submissive, resisting the abuse ‘strongly enough’, doing nothing that the accused might have registered as a ‘yes’ or much more.
Failing to check these boxes of ‘ideal victim behaviour’ may invite remarks like she ‘invited trouble’ and the cherry on the top would be if the perpetrator is unknown to her. When the court itself decides to see the victim from a certain regressive lens and judge whether she is an ‘ideal victim’ or not instead of deciding on whether the accused committed the crime or not, it makes it difficult for the rape survivor to get justice, as the gravity of the crime gets diluted and reduced to ‘you invited trouble, now live with it’.
This results in accused perpetrators getting bail and, as discussed above, in many cases, these out-on-bail accused kill victims, coerce them to give favourable statements and harass them in many ways.
In POCSO cases, where minors are victims, this leniency in granting bail becomes even more egregious since, in such cases, the law presumes the accused is guilty until proven otherwise. Despite this, the courts, though not in all but in many cases, have demanded unrealistic proof of intent or proof of victim resistance. This victim blaming, attempting to fit the victims in the ‘ideal rape victim’ archetype not only discourages rape survivors from seeking justice fearing even courts would disparage their dignity with such outrageous approach but also emboldens perpetrators as evidenced in the surging rape cases. There is an underlying systemic issue with the Indian judicial system, the problem might be male dominance, with only 14% of high court judges and only 9.3% of judges being women, or just a reluctance from judges to adapt themselves to changing social realities. Apparently, the patriarchal system shapes patriarchal outcomes.
Incidentally, in its ruling in the 2021 Aparna Bhat vs State of Madhya Pradesh case, the Supreme Court restricted discussing a sexual assault victim’s dress, behaviour or morals in bail verdicts and has a sensitive approach to avoid traumatising the victim again. However, the recent Allahabad High Court orders and others discussed above indicate that despite the Supreme Court’s emphasis on gender sensitisation for judges and prosecutors, it has not yielded any progressive results so far. Thus, gender sensitisation training for judges and prosecutors should be implemented rigorously. Judges should be trained in a manner that they are able to prioritise the rights of rape survivors for justice over societal prejudices while also ensuring that falsely implicated accused do not become scapegoat.
Most importantly, victim blaming should end. Unfortunately, society has been relentless enough to blame rape victims for crime committed against them. The courts should deliver judgments not on the victim’s character or expected behaviour but on the facts and evidence of the case.
Until the judiciary undergoes such serious reforms, the courts would continue to give outrageous orders as given by the Allahabad High Court in the Noida rape case. The judges must shun their patriarchal prejudices, misplaced sympathies for perpetrators, to deliver justice to the rape survivors, otherwise the judiciary would end up becoming complicit in a system that fails rape survivors, labels their trauma as their ‘fault’, thus perpetuating an opprobrious legacy of impunity. Women deserve justice, not ‘judgement’.
