Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking regular bail in a case alleging rape and sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage, the Single Judge Bench of Dr Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., held that where material on record prima facie indicates repeated assurances of marriage despite alleged awareness of impediments, i.e., matching of kundalis, the case cannot be treated as a mere failed relationship. Observing that the allegations disclosed possible inducement of consent through false assurances, attracting Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Court declined to grant regular bail at the pre-chargesheet stage.
Background
The present matter arose from FIR registered at Police Station Keshav Puram for offences punishable under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 69 BNS. The prosecutrix alleged that she had been acquainted with the applicant since 2018 and that a relationship developed between them during their college years.
According to the complaint, the applicant allegedly established physical relations with the prosecutrix on repeated assurances of marriage. It was alleged that relations continued over several years at different locations, including the applicant’s residence and hotels. The prosecutrix asserted that she had been introduced to the applicant’s family as his prospective spouse and had participated in family functions consistent with a matrimonial understanding.
The prosecution’s case recorded that an earlier complaint lodged by the prosecutrix had been withdrawn upon assurances by the applicant and his family that marriage would be solemnised. However, the applicant subsequently refused marriage, citing non-matching of horoscopes (kundalis), leading to registration of the present FIR.
During the investigation, the prosecutrix’s medical examination was conducted; no external injuries were recorded, and internal examination was declined. Her statement under Section 183 BNSS reiterated that physical relations were established on the assurance of marriage. The applicant’s mobile phone was seized and sent for forensic examination, while hotel records were under verification.
The applicant, in judicial custody since 4 January 2026, sought regular bail before the High Court.
The applicant contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and had subsisted for nearly eight years. It was argued that the marriage did not materialise solely due to a mismatch of horoscopes and therefore the case amounted merely to a relationship that had turned sour, not an offence of rape. On the other hand, the prosecutrix, alongwith the State, opposed bail, emphasising the seriousness of allegations and the ongoing nature of the investigation, with the chargesheet yet to be filed.
Issues:
Whether, in light of the allegations and material collected during investigation, the applicant was entitled to grant of regular bail pending filing of the chargesheet?
Analysis
At the outset, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the parties had known each other since their college days and had remained in a relationship for several years. Upon perusal of the complaint, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, and the electronic conversations placed on record, the Court observed that the applicant had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix that there existed no impediment to their marriage. The chats prima facie reflected representations by the applicant that horoscope matching posed no obstacle and that marriage was imminent, including a communication stating “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum”. The Court noted that the applicant had actively sought the prosecutrix’s birth details for horoscope matching and thereafter conveyed that their horoscopes had matched.
The Court further noted that the prosecutrix had earlier withdrawn a complaint only after alleged assurances of marriage by the applicant and his family. Despite such assurances, no steps towards solemnisation of marriage were taken, and the applicant later refused marriage, citing non-matching of kundalis. The sequence of events, according to the Court, could not at the present stage be viewed merely as a relationship ending unsuccessfully.
The Court addressed the argument of the applicant, which contended that mere breach of a promise to marry, or a consensual relationship between adults which subsequently turns sour, would not by itself attract the offence of rape. The Court acknowledged the established legal principle that criminal liability does not arise merely because a consensual relationship fails or marriage ultimately does not occur. Courts have consistently distinguished between a genuine promise that subsequently becomes incapable of fulfilment and a false assurance given from the inception to obtain consent.
However, the Court held that the present case prima facie stood on a different footing. The material suggested that assurances regarding the absence of impediments to marriage were repeatedly extended despite the applicant allegedly being aware of the significance attached by his family to horoscope compatibility. The Court observed that if kundali matching was determinative, the issue ought to have been settled before entering into physical relations. The later refusal on grounds earlier represented as resolved raised a prima facie question regarding the genuineness of the promise.
On this basis, the Court held that the allegations, at this stage of investigation, attracted the scope of Section 69 BNS, which addresses sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.
The Court emphasised that at the stage of bail, it is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence but only to determine whether a prima facie case exists and whether the parameters governing the grant of bail are satisfied. Considering the seriousness of allegations, the supporting material collected during the investigation, and the fact that the chargesheet had not yet been filed, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application and would not influence the trial on the merits. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
[Jayant Vats v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. No. 422 of 2026, decided on 17-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate with Kuldeep Choudhary and Amit Choudhary, Advocates
For the respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State, with SI Anita, along with the prosecutrix in person.