Woman’s Prior Familiarity or Cordial Relationship with accused cannot be Used to Blame her for Alleged Sexual Assault Committed against her : Delhi HC

It is entirely in the fitness of things and so also stands perfectly justified that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X v State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors in Crl.M.C. 378/2025 that was pronounced as recently as on 15.09.2025 has set aside the observations that were made in a Sessions Court order which had cast doubt on the character of a sexual assault victim while granting the accused bail.

- 

It is worth paying attention that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan has minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that a woman's prior familiarity or cordial relationship with the accused cannot be used to hold her responsible for the alleged sexual assault committed against her. To put it differently, the Bench unequivocally held that, “Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault.”

Very rightly so! At the very outset, this most commendable, coura-

geous, cogent and convincing judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.01.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ’), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Bail Application No. 67/2025 arising out of FIR No. 296/2024, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North for the offence under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).” As we see, the Bench then states in para 2 that, “By the impugned order the learned ASJ admitted Respondent No. 2 on bail.” To put things in perspective, the Bench while elaborating on the facts of the case envisages in para 3 disclosing that, “The brief facts are, the

petitioner meet Respondent No. 2 in June 2024, thereafter, they exchanged contact numbers and started talking to each other.” As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 4 laying bare that, “It is alleged on 12.10.2024, the petitioner and