“False Promise to Marry coupled with concealment shows dishonest intent from inception”, says HC

In a significant scrutiny of anticipatory bail jurisprudence involving allegations of deception in intimate relationships, the Delhi High Court stepped in to examine whether an accused, alleged to have induced a woman into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage while concealing material facts, deserved protection from arrest. The case raised a crucial question on the intersection of consent, deception, and criminal liability under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, with the Court closely evaluating whether such conduct reflected a prima facie dishonest intent from the outset.

The controversy began when an FIR was registered at Vijay Vihar, Delhi, based on allegations that the applicant developed a relationship with the prosecutrix during 2023 and repeatedly established physical relations on the promise of marriage. Counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship was entirely consensual, asserting that the prosecutrix was aware of his existing relationship with another woman and that there was no false promise involved. It was further contended that the applicant was merely in a live-in relationship and not legally married, thereby negating any allegation of deception.

On the other hand, the State, supported by the prosecutrix, argued that the applicant had deliberately concealed the existence of his partner and children, thereby inducing consent under a misconception of fact. The prosecution also highlighted that the applicant failed to join the investigation and had previously made misleading submissions before the Sessions Court.

The Court, after examining the investigation record, WhatsApp chats, photographs, and other material, found that the prosecutrix was not aware of the applicant’s existing domestic arrangement or children. Delivering a sharp observation, the bench noted that the material on record “prima facie indicates that the applicant herein had dishonest intention from the inception of his relationship with the prosecutrix with regard to the promise of marriage,” and that the prosecutrix had entered the relationship “under a misconception of facts.”

The Court further took serious note of the applicant’s conduct in attempting to mislead the Court and failing to join the investigation, observing that such behaviour did not warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour.

Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Case Title: Rohit Vs. State Nct of Delhi And Anr

Case No.: Crl.M.A. 9604/2026

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Nimish Chib

Advocate for the Respondent: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, Adv. Archit Upadhayay, SI Arpita Mishra,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com