Ex-DU Professor Denied Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case

A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to a former Delhi University professor accused of raping a former student and threatening to circulate objectionable videos of her, according to a report by the Press Trust of India (PTI). The court said the allegations and WhatsApp conversations between the two raised concerns about coercion, intimidation and the possibility of interference with the investigation.

Additional Sessions Judge Gomati Manocha rejected the accused’s plea, observing that granting him protection from arrest could create a substantial risk of threats or coercive contact with the complainant. The court also highlighted the possibility of electronic evidence being tampered with and said custodial questioning might be necessary to collect material linked to the alleged recordings.

The woman alleged that the former professor sexually exploited her repeatedly on the false promise of marriage and threatened to circulate objectionable videos if she did not comply with his demands. She also accused him of having sexual relations with her after administering a substance that left her incapacitated and recording objectionable videos without her consent.

The accused has denied the allegations, maintaining that the two were in a consensual relationship for more than three years. His counsel argued that the first information report (FIR) had been filed in retaliation for a separate case registered after an alleged assault on him in July.

In its October 12 order, the court also directed that the investigation be assigned to a named senior police officer. It ordered the preservation of original mobile phones, complete WhatsApp conversations, metadata, cloud backups and forensic images, underscoring the importance of securing digital evidence while ensuring a fair investigation for both the complainant and the accused.

Why did the Delhi court reject anticipatory bail?

The court’s decision centred on the alleged risk of intimidation, continued pressure on the complainant and possible interference with electronic evidence. Anticipatory bail is a form of pre-arrest protection that a person may seek when they apprehend arrest in connection with a criminal case. A court considering such a request assesses the circumstances of the case and the relevant legal factors before deciding whether protection should be granted.

In this case, Judge Gomati Manocha said the material presented to the court indicated a risk that the accused could influence or threaten the complainant if granted anticipatory bail.

“In case the accused is granted anticipatory bail, there is a substantial risk of influencing or threatening the victim, risk of tampering with the electronic evidence and possibility of repetition of threats or coercive contact,” the judge said.

The court’s concerns extended beyond the allegations of sexual assault. The alleged recording of objectionable videos and threats to circulate them raised questions about whether the complainant could be subjected to further pressure and whether digital material relevant to the case would remain secure.

Electronic evidence can be particularly significant in cases involving alleged threats or non-consensual recordings. Messages, metadata, device records and cloud backups may help investigators establish the context of communications, identify the origin of digital files and examine whether material was stored or transmitted.

The court indicated that investigators might need to question the accused in custody to collect evidence relating to the alleged videos and their storage or transmission. The possibility of custodial questioning formed part of the court’s assessment of whether pre-arrest protection was appropriate at this stage.

However, the rejection of anticipatory bail is not, by itself, a determination that the accused is guilty. The allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings, during which the prosecution’s claims and the defence’s position must be assessed according to law.

What are the allegations against the former Delhi University professor?

According to the complaint described in the PTI report, the woman accused the former professor of sexually exploiting her several times on the promise of marriage. She alleged that he threatened to circulate objectionable videos of her if she refused to comply with his demands.

The complainant also alleged that the accused had sexual relations with her after administering a substance that left her incapacitated. She further claimed that he recorded objectionable videos without her consent.

These allegations raise several distinct issues for investigators, including the circumstances surrounding the alleged sexual acts, whether consent was freely given, how the recordings were created and whether threats were made to distribute them.

The alleged threats are also relevant to the question of whether the complainant may have faced pressure to remain silent or withdraw from the proceedings. The court specifically highlighted concerns about possible coercive contact and the risk of continued intimidation.

The accused, however, has disputed the allegations and claimed that the relationship was consensual for more than three years. His counsel also questioned the circumstances in which the FIR was registered, alleging that it was retaliation for a separate case following an alleged assault on him in July.

The competing claims mean that investigators will need to examine the available evidence rather than rely solely on either side’s account. The court’s observations about the WhatsApp conversations indicate that it did not consider affectionate or sexual messages sufficient, on their own, to settle the question of consent to every alleged act.

Court says WhatsApp messages do not establish consent to every alleged act

One of the significant aspects of the court’s order was its assessment of the WhatsApp conversations between the accused and the complainant.

The accused’s defence relied on the claim that the two had been in a consensual relationship for more than three years. However, the court said the exchange of affectionate and sexual messages did not conclusively establish that the complainant had freely and knowingly consented to every sexual act alleged in the case.

The distinction is important because the existence of a relationship does not automatically resolve questions about consent in individual encounters. Investigators and courts must consider the circumstances surrounding the specific allegations, including whether coercion, threats or incapacity were involved.

Messages may provide evidence about the nature of a relationship or the interactions between two people, but their meaning depends on the context in which they were exchanged. They must be assessed alongside other available evidence rather than treated as definitive proof of consent or the absence of coercion.

The court also considered the alleged power imbalance arising from the accused’s position as the complainant’s teacher. It said this relationship was relevant while assessing the allegations of coercion and intimidation.

A teacher-student relationship can raise questions about authority and influence, although the existence of such a relationship does not, by itself, establish that a criminal offence occurred. In this case, the court considered the alleged professional relationship alongside the allegations, messages and potential risks associated with the investigation.

Alleged objectionable videos raise concerns over digital evidence

The alleged creation of objectionable recordings without consent and threats to circulate them were central to the court’s concerns about evidence preservation.

Digital material can be stored across multiple locations, including mobile devices, messaging applications, cloud accounts and backup systems. Investigators may need to examine these sources to establish whether recordings exist, how they were created, whether they were shared and whether any threats relating to their circulation were communicated.

Preserving original devices and associated digital records can be important because electronic evidence may contain information that is not visible in screenshots or isolated message extracts. Metadata, for example, can provide technical information about files, while forensic images can help investigators examine digital material without unnecessarily altering the original device.

In its order, the court directed the investigating officer to preserve original mobile phones, complete WhatsApp chats, metadata, cloud backups and forensic images. The instructions were intended to support the collection and preservation of material relevant to the allegations.

The direction also reflects the need to maintain the integrity of evidence. In a case involving disputed communications and alleged recordings, a complete record may help investigators evaluate competing accounts and establish the sequence of relevant events.

The court’s emphasis on preservation does not establish that the alleged videos were created or circulated in the manner claimed. Those questions require examination of the available evidence as part of the investigation.

Delhi court orders investigation by a named senior police officer

Alongside rejecting anticipatory bail, the court directed that the investigation be assigned to a named senior police officer to help ensure a fair and thorough inquiry.

The October 12 order stressed the importance of collecting and preserving original digital evidence and ensuring fairness to both parties. The court said it considered the assignment necessary to support a proper investigation and secure the relevant material.

“This court considers it necessary, in the interest of justice, that the investigation be assigned to a named senior officer so that proper investigation can be done to obtain and preserve original mobile phones… to ensure fairness to both the victim and the accused,” the judge said.

The direction requires the investigating officer to preserve the relevant digital material, including the original mobile phones and complete WhatsApp conversations. It also requires attention to metadata, cloud backups and forensic images that could help investigators reconstruct the available electronic evidence.

The court additionally directed the investigating officer to examine allegations that the accused or his associates were pressuring the complainant not to pursue the case.

“The investigating officer shall also examine the allegation that the accused or his associates are pressurising the prosecutrix not to pursue the case and shall record statements of the persons having knowledge of such pressure,” the judge said.

This direction means the investigation must consider not only the original allegations but also whether the complainant has faced attempts to influence her participation in the proceedings. Statements from people who may have knowledge of the alleged pressure could form part of that inquiry.

Police directed to report on the investigation within 15 days

The court asked the Delhi Commissioner of Police to take the necessary action and submit a report to the jurisdictional magistrate within 15 days concerning the assignment of the investigation to a named senior officer.

The direction places an additional responsibility on the police to address the court’s concerns about the conduct of the inquiry and the preservation of electronic evidence.

The investigation will need to examine the complainant’s allegations, the accused’s claim of a consensual relationship, the relevant WhatsApp conversations and any digital material connected to the alleged recordings. Investigators have also been directed to look into claims of pressure on the complainant and record statements from people with relevant knowledge.

The outcome will depend on the evidence collected and the conclusions reached through the legal process. The court’s directions do not amount to a final finding on the truth of the allegations, but they identify issues that investigators must examine carefully.

What happens next in the former professor’s case?

With anticipatory bail denied, the former professor has not received the pre-arrest protection he sought. The investigation is expected to proceed with particular attention to digital evidence, the allegations of threats and the possibility of pressure being exerted on the complainant.

The court’s order places the preservation of original electronic material at the centre of the inquiry. Complete conversations, device records, metadata and cloud backups may be relevant to understanding the communications between the parties and investigating the allegations concerning the videos.

Investigators must also examine the defence’s position that the relationship was consensual and the claim that the FIR was filed in retaliation for a separate case following an alleged assault in July. These assertions remain disputed and require assessment through the appropriate legal process.

The order also highlights the court’s concern that the complainant should not face further threats or coercive contact while the case is being investigated. The police have been directed to examine the allegations of pressure and to document statements from people who may have knowledge of it.

Ultimately, the denial of anticipatory bail reflects the court’s assessment of the risks associated with granting pre-arrest protection at this stage. It does not replace the investigation or determine the accused’s guilt. The case will turn on the evidence collected, the examination of the competing claims and the subsequent proceedings before the appropriate courts.