Weeks after an Allahabad High Court judge sparked outrage by observing that acts like breast grabbing or pulling a pajama string do not amount to rape or attempted rape, another judge from the same court has granted bail to a rape accused, remarking that the victim had “invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”

The case pertains to an FIR lodged in September last year. The complainant, a postgraduate student living as a paying guest in Delhi, had alleged that the accused raped her after a night out in Hauz Khas.

According to the FIR, she and her friends consumed alcohol at a restaurant until 3 am, following which she agreed to accompany the accused to his residence to rest, as she was “very intoxicated.”

In his bail order, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted that the victim alleged the accused took her to a relative’s flat instead of his own and raped her twice. However, the judge observed that this allegation was “false and against the evidence on record,” and suggested the situation may instead indicate a “consensual relationship.”

Justice Singh further noted that both parties are adults and the complainant, being a postgraduate student, was “competent enough to understand the morality and significance of her act.” He stated, “Even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, it can also be concluded that she herself invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”

The judge emphasized that the accused, Nischal Chandak, has no prior criminal history, has been in custody since December 11, and poses no flight risk or threat of tampering with evidence. Despite opposition from the state counsel, the court granted bail, citing the lack of dispute over factual details.

This order comes on the heels of a controversial March 17 judgment by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the same court, who ruled that actions such as breast grabbing and attempting to pull down a girl’s pyjama string could not amount to an attempt to rape. That judgment, delivered four months after being reserved, was widely criticized for its “inhuman approach” and “lack of sensitivity.”

The Supreme Court later intervened, staying key portions of the judgment and expressing concern over the legal reasoning. “It was not even at the spur of the moment... There was application of mind,” the top court observed, asking both the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government to respond.