Why the victim's own statement under Section 164 CrPC killed the rape case.

Adnan's Bail: When a Live-In Relationship Becomes a Rape Case

Adnan was a young man in Saharanpur. He befriended a girl. They lived together for about a year. They had sex. She got pregnant. He gave her medicine to abort. She wanted marriage. He refused. She went to the police.

By April 18, 2023, Adnan was in jail. He faced charges under Section 376 IPC (rape), Section 316 IPC (causing death of quick unborn child), Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The stakes were simple: his liberty. He had been locked up for over four months. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had to decide whether he should stay there until trial.

On August 29, 2023, Justice Siddharth, sitting alone, granted bail. The order in Adnan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2023:AHC:174117) is a short one — barely eleven paragraphs. But it raises a question that keeps coming back to Indian courts: when does a consensual live-in relationship become a crime?

What the FIR Actually Said

The case started at Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. Case Crime No. 156 of 2023 was registered. The victim alleged that Adnan had lured her into a live-in relationship on the false promise of marriage. She said he had consensual sex with her during that year, but only because he promised to marry her. When she became pregnant, he gave her medicine to abort the child. When she pressed for marriage, he refused. She also alleged that Adnan had made an incriminating video of her and used it to threaten her. And she claimed that two other persons had raped her.

That is the prosecution case. On paper, it looks serious. Rape. Abortion. Criminal intimidation. POCSO. But the High Court looked at the evidence that had already been collected — and found a different story.

The Statement That Changed Everything

The victim gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a magistrate. That statement is crucial. In it, she admitted that the physical relations during the live-in relationship were consensual. She did not say she was forced. She did not say she was tricked from the start. She said they lived together, they had sex, and then things went wrong when he refused to marry her.

Justice Siddharth noted this directly. The Court observed that the FIR appeared to be a "post-breakup attempt to convert the live-in relationship into marriage." The victim wanted marriage. Adnan did not. That is a broken promise — but is it rape?

The law says no — at least not automatically. A promise to marry that is broken later does not necessarily make the preceding sexual acts rape. The question is whether the promise was false from the beginning. If the man never intended to marry, and used the promise only to obtain consent, then it is rape. But if the relationship was genuine, and the promise was real at the time, a later change of heart is not a crime.

The victim's own statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. did not allege that Adnan's promise was false from day one. That weakened the prosecution's case significantly.

The Age Problem: 19 or 16?

Then there was the POCSO angle. The POCSO Act applies when the victim is below 18 years of age. If the victim was a minor, consent is irrelevant — any sexual act is an offence. So the victim's age became a critical issue.

The prosecution relied on the victim's school leaving certificate. It showed her date of birth as approximately 16 years and 8 months at the time of the incident. That would make her a minor. But the ossification test — a medical examination to determine age — showed her to be 19 years old.

Which one should the court believe at the bail stage?

Justice Siddharth held that the ossification test evidence was a relevant consideration. Not conclusive — the trial court will decide the age finally. But at the bail stage, the court could take note of the medical evidence showing the victim was a major. That tilted the scales further in Adnan's favour.

This is a recurring tension in Indian criminal law. School certificates can be manipulated. Ossification tests have a margin of error. But when the two conflict, courts have to make a call — and at the bail stage, the benefit of doubt often goes to the accused.

The Obiter That Made Headlines

Justice Siddharth did not stop at the legal analysis. He added two paragraphs of social commentary that are likely to be quoted — and criticised — for years.

The Court observed that "live-in relationships sound attractive to youth" but that "middle class social morality eventually forces couples to realize that their relationship lacks social sanction." The result, the Court said, is that breakups "disproportionately harm the female partner who faces social ostracism and difficulty in finding a marriage partner."

That observation is arguably within the realm of judicial notice. It reflects a social reality that many Indian families face. But then the Court went further.

Justice Siddharth wrote that there is a "systematic design to destroy the institution of marriage in this country" through films and TV serials that "portray infidelity and live-in relationships as signs of progressive society." He then cited Pakistan as an example of what happens when "middle class morality" is absent — "social, political, and religious unrest."

This is obiter. It is not necessary for the decision. It is the personal opinion of the judge. And it is likely to be controversial. Critics will say the Court stepped into social policy without any evidence. Supporters will say the Court was merely reflecting a widely held view. Either way, it has no binding legal force. But it does tell us something about how this judge views live-in relationships — and that may influence how he decides similar cases in the future.

The Precedent That Mattered: Satendra Kumar Antil

On the legal side, the Court relied on one key precedent: Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. (S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgment dated 11.07.2022). That Supreme Court judgment laid down guidelines on bail and addressed the problem of overcrowding in Indian jails. The Supreme Court emphasised that undertrial prisoners have a fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the trial is going to take time, and the accused has no criminal antecedents, bail should be the rule, not the exception.

Justice Siddharth applied that principle directly. Adnan had been in custody since April 18, 2023. He had no criminal history. The trial was not going to conclude quickly. The victim's own statement weakened the prosecution case. On these facts, the Court held that Adnan had made out a case for bail.

THE PLAY: In live-in relationship cases where the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement admits consensual relations, and the ossification test shows the victim is a major, the accused is entitled to bail — especially when there is no criminal history and the trial will take time.

The Six Conditions

Bail was granted, but with strings attached. The Court imposed six conditions:

• Adnan must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
• He must cooperate in the trial and not seek adjournments.
• He must not commit any criminal activity while on bail.
• He must not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• He must appear personally on the dates fixed for his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
• He must appear personally whenever the trial court requires his presence.

These are standard conditions. They are designed to ensure that the accused does not abuse his liberty. But they also reflect a reality: the trial will go on, and Adnan will have to face it. Bail is not an acquittal. It is a recognition that a person should not be punished before being proved guilty.

Why This Judgment Matters for Practitioners

For advocates, this judgment is a useful template. If you are defending a client in a live-in relationship case where the victim later alleges rape, here is what you need to show:

First, get the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. If it admits consensual relations, that is your strongest point. Second, check the victim's age. If the ossification test shows majority, use it. Third, show that your client has no criminal antecedents. Fourth, argue that the trial will take time and that continued incarceration violates Article 21.

For founders and CFOs, this judgment is a reminder that personal relationships can have serious legal consequences. A consensual relationship that ends badly can lead to criminal charges. The law is not always predictable. But the trend is clear: courts are increasingly willing to grant bail in cases where the evidence shows consent, even if the relationship was not formalised by marriage.

The Bottom Line

Adnan walked out of jail because the victim's own statement showed the relationship was consensual, the medical evidence suggested she was a major, and the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines made bail the default position. If you are advising a client in a similar situation, the lesson is simple: get the Section 164 statement, check the ossification test, and argue Article 21 — because in India, undertrial prisoners should not rot in jail while waiting for a trial that may never come.