The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a person accused of sexually exploiting a woman by threatening to circulate intimate videos, holding that consent to have a relationship or even a sexual relationship cannot be extended to support coercion, filming of intimate scenes, or their misuse through social media.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order on 17.01.2025 and dismissed a regular bail application filed by the accused in a case registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.How the case arose:The complainant, who was a married woman residing in Delhi with her children, while her husband worked in Gujarat, came into contact with the accused due to family ties. The accused worked overseas and was claimed to have become very close to the complainant because of continuous communication. During this, the accused transferred around Rs.3.5 lakh to the complainant to help her pursue a professional course, with the understanding she would pay it back upon securing employment.The relationship soon took a darker turn. The complainant claimed that the accused then used this relationship to manipulate her into submission to his sexual requests. She argued that he coerced her into stripping off during WhatsApp video calls which was recorded without her knowledge. When the accused came to Delhi towards the end of 2023, he presented her with these videos and forcibly established physical relations with her for two days under the threat of making her videos public. He also made a video of the complainant in which she was forced to admit having obtained Rs.5 lakh from the accused.Later, the accused started defaming her by sending the said videos to the people in her native village and posted her inappropriate video on social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram.On 17.01.2024, an FIR was registered against the accused at Police Station Neb Sarai, Delhi. The complainant was medically examined at AIIMS, Delhi, her statement under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded and the accused was arrested on 20.01.2024.Arguments for bail:The accused argued before the High Court that the relationship between the parties was consensual and had gone sour after a disagreement on the financial issue. He also claimed that the relationship was consensual and that the money given to the complainant was a loan and relied on a loan agreement between the parties. It was also argued that the accused had been in custody for nearly a year, the forensic report was still awaited, and the trial would take time.The accused further argued that the complainant was in a consensual relationship with him despite being married and having children. He also mentioned that the complainant was working in a massage parlour, implying that her profession weakened her allegations.The State fought against the bail request based on the statement of the complainant made under the provision of Section 164 of the CrPC, stating that, the accused used intimate videos as instruments of blackmail and control. The counsel representing the complainant pointed out the fact that although the accused had not only prepared such material but also it was published, which, according to the prosecution, aggravated the offence.The amicus curiae appearing for the complainant argued that the accused had betrayed the complainant’s trust, created explicit content without consent, and then weaponized it to sexually exploit her. It was further alleged that the accused had uploaded morphed images of the complainant’s minor daughter on social media.High Court’s Analysis:In determining the bail application, the High Court looked at whether the sexual assault charges could be watered down at this point by the claim of having a consensual relationship by the accused. The Court observed that though the complainant may have agreed to a relationship in the past, such agreement cannot be regarded as license to all future actions. The Court rejected the argument that an consensual relationship could automatically neutralize allegations of sexual assault.The Court observed that even if the first sexual encounter was consensual, such consent does not extend to recording intimate moments or using them as tools of coercion.The Court made a categorical observation against the defence argument by rejecting it:“Consent to engage in physical relations does not extend to the misuse or exploitation of a person’s private moments or their depiction in an inappropriate and derogatory manner.”The Court also expressed the opinion that, after one uses intimate material to intimidate or control an individual, then no other sexual act can be considered consensual. It held that according to the allegations, the complainant was subjected to the fear of humiliation and reputational damage at all times, which is enough to vitiate any assertion of free consent.The High Court further frowned upon the effort to use the marital status or the profession of the complainant to weaken the charges. It noted that such arguments were ill placed and legally invalid. The Court observed that the friendship between the two parties was two sided and that the accused could not subsequently claim to have been forced into the relationship. In that regard, the Court noted that putting the blame of the inquiry on the complainant by highlighting on her marital status was ‘unacceptable’.Rejecting this, the Court observed:“while on one hand, it has been averred on behalf of the accused in the bail application, and also argued before this Court by the learned counsel, that he was in a friendly and consensual relationship with the victim, but on the other, he wants to blame the complainant of having entered into a relationship with him, allegedly consensual, despite being married — totally forgetting that the friendship was mutual, and not unilateral. While the accused now wants to categorize and differentiate this friendship as if imposed on him by the complainant after filing of the present complaint and plead innocence, his own pleadings and arguments reflect to the contrary”One of the major considerations that the Court has paid attention to was the fact that the accused had morphed and shared the photographs of the minor daughter of the complainant on the social media claiming that the latter was engaged in sex trade.According to the Court, these accusations coupled with the confiscation of digital material contributed to the seriousness of the crime and could not be ignored at the bail stage.After considering the material on record, the High Court concluded that the accused’s conduct, as alleged, went far beyond a dispute arising out of a failed friendship or financial transaction.The Court held that:“Even if the first episode of the sexual relationship had been consensual, the subsequent acts were clearly rooted in coercion and blackmail.”Considering the seriousness of the charges, the character of digital evidence, and that material witnesses were yet to be examined, the Court found that the case was not a fit case to grant bail. While dismissing the bail plea, the Court also expressed concern over delay in forensic examination. It directed the Forensic Science Laboratory to expedite preparation of the pending report, noting that the accused was in judicial custody and that the trial should not be delayed on that account.The Court clarified that all observations were confined to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)