Brief Summary
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Arun Kumar Mishra, accused of rape and other offences by a former partner. The Court found the intimate relationship to be consensual and noted the delayed FIR and lack of supporting evidence. The judgment reinforces the principle that personal relationships, when soured, should not be given a criminal colour without clear legal grounds.
Facts of the Case
- The complainant, a 25-year-old former bank employee, alleged that Arun Kumar Mishra, a businessman and existing client, offered her a job and later proposed marriage.
- She claimed that after accepting the job and entering into a relationship, she was sexually assaulted multiple times, often under threat or deception.
- Allegations included spiking her drink, blackmail through videos, forced travel, and a fake marriage ceremony.
- FIR was lodged five months after the alleged incidents, following a breakup and after discovering Mishra’s earlier marriages.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Sections 323, 376, 420, 504, 506 IPC
- Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to life and personal liberty
- Key Supreme Court precedents: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Deepak Gulati, Ansaar Mohammad, Nitin B. Nikhare, among others.
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent
For the Applicant
- Relationship was consensual and ongoing.
- Delayed FIR lacks credibility.
- Evidence such as hotel bookings, chats, travel plans shows mutual involvement.
- Dropped charges (313 and 377 IPC) further weaken the case.
- No criminal antecedents, cooperative in investigation.
For the State/Complainant
- Applicant misused his influence and wealth.
- Has a history of manipulating women, allegedly married multiple times.
- Alleged forged marriage documents to deceive the complainant.
- Emotional and physical harm caused to the complainant was grave and deliberate.
Court’s Observation
- The relationship was consensual, though socially questionable.
- Legal system should not be used to settle personal vendettas post-breakup.
- FIR appears retaliatory, not genuinely criminal.
- Not all immoral acts are punishable by law.
- Affirmed the presumption of innocence and emphasized fair trial rights.
Conclusion of the Judgment
The Court granted bail considering:
- Lack of prima facie evidence for serious charges,
- Admission by both parties of consensual intimacy,
- Delay in filing FIR,
- Removal of major charges (Sections 313, 377 IPC),
- No threat of the applicant fleeing justice.
Bail was allowed with standard conditions and a strong reminder that the trial must proceed uninfluenced by the bail order.
Comments from the author of this website
As someone who advocates for men’s rights, I find this case deeply reflective of how personal and romantic relationships are increasingly weaponized against men when things go wrong.
I’ve seen cases like this before — where two adults enter a relationship, share physical intimacy, even travel and stay together — but when the relationship ends or expectations aren’t met, men are suddenly facing serious criminal charges like rape.
To me, this wasn’t a case of sexual violence; it was a failed relationship painted as a crime. The five-month delay in filing the FIR, the ongoing consensual engagement, and the timing of the complaint all raise red flags.
I’m not saying every complaint is false — but I do believe that the legal system must differentiate between genuine criminal offences and emotional backlash. Otherwise, men like Arun Kumar Mishra, who may already be emotionally entangled, are dragged through years of court battles and reputational damage.
This judgment gives hope that courts are beginning to see through such misuse and are standing by the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception — especially when the law is used as a tool for revenge.
Read Complete Judgement Here