Recently, the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old accused booked under Section 376 IPC, observing that the relationship between the parties appeared consensual and not one induced by a false promise of marriage. The Court held that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour, emphasizing the paramount importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The FIR was lodged at Police Station Nand Nagri on 11 September 2025 on the complaint of a woman who alleged that her neighbour had sexually exploited her for two years on the false promise of marriage. According to the complainant, the accused proposed to her in August 2023, following which they entered into a relationship. She alleged that he repeatedly established physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and later refused to marry her on various excuses.
The complainant further stated that she lived with the accused at his residence from 3 August to 20 August 2025, during which they cohabited as husband and wife. On 20 August, when they visited Tis Hazari Courts to solemnize their marriage, the accused allegedly fled on the pretext of calling his parents and never returned. Thereafter, the complainant filed the FIR. The petitioner’s anticipatory bail plea was dismissed by the Sessions Court, prompting the present application before the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual, voluntary, and based on mutual affection since 2023. The WhatsApp chats between them revealed consistent patterns of emotional intimacy and voluntary meetings rather than deceit. It was submitted that the complainant often insisted on physical intimacy, thereby negating any claim that the petitioner induced her under a false promise of marriage.
It was further argued that the complainant exerted emotional pressure and coercion on the petitioner, threatening self-harm and false implication if he refused to marry her. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, and Naim Ahamed v. State, to argue that a breach of promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that the accused never intended to marry from the beginning.
The petitioner, a 20-year-old with no prior criminal record, assured full cooperation with the investigation and sought protection from pre-trial incarceration.
Contentions of the Complainant:
The counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the bail plea, asserting that the allegations under Section 376 IPC were grave and substantiated by the complainant’s consistent statements under Section 183 BNSS. It was contended that the accused had deliberately misled the complainant into a sexual relationship under the false pretext of marriage and that his custodial interrogation might be necessary at this stage of investigation.
They argued that the complainant, being a 21-year-old woman, was exploited for two years, and her consent was vitiated by deception. Releasing the accused at this stage, they contended, would prejudice the ongoing investigation.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined the FIR, WhatsApp conversations, and other materials placed on record. It observed that the nature of communication between the parties indicated a pattern of mutual affection and voluntary intimacy rather than coercion. The Court noted specific instances, including messages where the complainant herself expressed willingness to engage in intimacy, stating “hm tb room pr oyo chlenge… sex… ekdum khulkar dungi,” and another saying “ek last baar room pr jana.”
The Court also took note of a video dated 22 August 2025 in which the complainant could be heard telling her mother, “Mujhe nahi kami shadi, mujhe to bas ise andar karwana hai,” suggesting mala fide intent to implicate the petitioner.
Justice [Name not provided in order] emphasized that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner had no intention to marry from the inception of the relationship, distinguishing between a mere breach of promise and a false promise. The Court elaborated that a false promise arises only when the accused, from the very beginning, had no intention of marrying and used the promise merely to satisfy lust.
Citing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated, “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex… The court must examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and made a false promise only to satisfy his lust. An accused can be convicted for rape only if the intention of the accused was mala fide and clandestine.”
Further, referring to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, the Court observed, “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to engage in sexual relations, there is a misconception of fact vitiating consent. However, a mere breach of promise made in good faith cannot be treated as a false promise.”
The Court also noted the recent Apex Court ruling in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, which cautioned against invoking criminal law in cases where consensual relationships deteriorate over time. It warned that such misuse not only burdens the criminal justice system but also tarnishes individual reputations.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the facts and precedents, the Court held that the petitioner’s relationship with the complainant was consensual, and the material on record did not support the claim of false promise of marriage. The Court observed that personal liberty under Article 21 must remain paramount, and criminal law should not be weaponized as an act of vengeance.
Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, sharing his mobile number with the Investigating Officer, and refraining from contacting the complainant or tampering with evidence. The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were for the limited purpose of adjudicating the bail application and should not influence the trial on merits.
- AIBE 20 (2025) Mock Test Series: Set 2 (100 Questions with Answers)
- AIBE 20 (2025) Full-Length Mock Test: 100 Questions with Answer Key
- CLAT 2026 Admit Card Released: Download Link & Exam Day Instructions
- Weekly Legal News Roundup (Nov 17-23, 2025): Top Supreme Court & High Court Judgments
- Justice Surya Kant Takes Charge: A New Era for the Indian Judiciary
