The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Sanoj Kumar Mishra, a film director who had been detained since March 30 under serious charges, including rape.
In its May 30 order, Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed concern over a perceived increase in fabricated sexual-offence complaints, using Mishra’s case as a cautionary example.
Complainant Recants
In court, the woman who initially accused Mishra filed an affidavit admitting that she and Mishra had been involved in a consensual live-in relationship in Mumbai. She stated that she only pursued the rape complaint after being influenced by individuals she described as Mishra’s rivals.
Moreover, the complainant explicitly informed the court that she “has no objection if the accused is released on bail.” This retraction played a crucial role in the High Court’s assessment of the case.
Court’s Strong Denunciation
Justice Kathpalia’s order underscored the detrimental impact of baseless accusations:
“This is yet another case, reflecting the recent trend of lodging false complaints of sexual offences. Every false complaint of sexual offences not just causes immense damage to the person accused of the offence, but also creates cynicism and distrust across the society, which leads to even the genuine victims of sexual offences suffer, as society starts suspecting her truthful complaint also to be false. Such false complaints have to be dealt with sternly.”
The judge warned that when false allegations circulate unchecked, they undermine public confidence in the justice system and can retraumatize genuine survivors of sexual violence by casting doubt on their claims.
FIR Against Complainant & Alleged Conspirators
During the hearing, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Nabi Karim informed the court that a new FIR was being prepared against the complainant and those who allegedly prompted her to submit the false rape complaint. Investigators have begun gathering evidence to determine who instigated the woman to lodge unsubstantiated charges against Mishra.
Jurisdictional Challenge Raised By Defense Counsel
Senior advocate Amit Chadha, representing Mishra, contended that Delhi lacked jurisdiction over the alleged crime. According to him, the complainant and Mishra cohabited in Mumbai, while the supposed incident occurred in Orcha, Madhya Pradesh—making Delhi an improper forum for the prosecution.
Chadha further asserted that the complaint had been filed under duress, designed to compel Mishra to advance the woman’s prospects in the film industry.
Bail Terms & Release Conditions
Taking into account the complainant’s retraction, her willingness to allow bail, and the jurisdictional concerns, Justice Kathpalia concluded there was no justification to continue depriving Mishra of his liberty. Accordingly, Mishra was granted bail on furnishing:
A personal bond of ₹10,000, and
A surety of ₹10,000.
With these conditions met, Mishra has been released from custody pending further proceedings.
Nature of Original Charges
Upon his arrest on March 30, Mishra faced multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code, including:
Section 376 (rape)
Section 354C (voyeurism)
Section 313 (causing miscarriage without consent)
Section 323 (causing hurt)
Section 506 (criminal intimidation)
These allegations arose from the complaint lodged by the woman, which the court now treats as potentially fabricated.
Broader Implications For Justice System
The court’s remarks highlight the delicate balance the judiciary must strike between protecting genuine victims of sexual crimes and preventing the misuse of protective laws. As the FIR against the complainant and any co-conspirators moves forward, legal observers will watch closely to see how authorities distinguish between legitimate grievances and false accusations.
Ultimately, the case may set a precedent for how courts respond when an accuser retracts their statement, and underscores the importance of thorough, impartial investigation in all sexual-offence matters.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
