Cancellation of Bail Supreme Court Judgment Varun Hiremath. Supreme Court in ‘rape’ case: When woman and man are in room

In the present post we’ll read that the Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the plea of a woman who has alleged sexual assault by TV anchor Varun Hiremath seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to him by the Delhi high court.

Also Read- Cancellation of Bail by High Court in India

Cancellation of Bail Supreme Court Judgment Varun Hiremath
Cancellation of Bail Supreme Court Judgment Varun Hiremath

Background Facts

The woman had accused Hiremath of sexually assaulting her in a hotel in Delhi in February. The trial court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea in March. The HC granted him relief on May 13.

The petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, said the woman had honestly recorded her statement that she had disrobed voluntarily but had objected to Hiremath forcing himself on her despite repeated refusals.

“Disrobing does not mean she consented to sexual activity and that clearly made out an offence of rape given the statutory changes effected after the Nirbhaya gang rapecum-murder case,” she said. Ramakrishnan said the conduct of the accused also needed to be considered by the apex court as he had absconded after registration of the FIR and evaded arrest warrants. “The woman’s Section 164 statement clearly shows that she had indicated to him that she did not want to go beyond a certain point.

Also Read- Cancellation Of Bail

Court’s Observation & Decision

A bench of Justices Navin Sinha and Ajay Rastogi said the woman’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before a magistrate clearly did not warrant the apex court to interfere with the relief granted to the anchor by the HC.

It is a settled law that consent of the woman is necessary for every part of the sexual act. Since the consent was refused at a certain point, the offence clearly would be categorised as rape,” she said. The bench made the senior advocate read certain portions of the Section 164 statement and said, “When a man and a woman are in a room, and the man makes a request and the woman complies with it, do we need to say anything more?” The bench rejected the petition saying it was not inclined to interfere with the Delhi HC order granting pre-arrest bail to Hiremath.


For case specific advice please contact bail cancellation Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur Derabassi etc.

More on 99888-17966.