Recently, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Naveen Yadav in a criminal case arising out of allegations under Section 69 of the BNS Act, holding that his continued incarceration was neither necessary for investigation nor justified at this stage. The Court observed that the FIR allegations, on a preliminary review, appeared to be based on a failed matrimonial promise rather than a completed offence, and that bail is the rule while detention is an exception.
Brief Facts:
The case pertains to a matrimonial dispute where the complainant met Naveen Yadav through a matrimonial website and was persuaded to meet him multiple times. The complainant alleged that Yadav induced her into a relationship with promises of marriage, and during one of the meetings at a hotel, he allegedly made physical advances and took objectionable photographs. She claimed that after she pressed for marriage, the applicant and his family imposed unlawful demands, including expensive property and cash abroad. Feeling deceived, the complainant lodged a police complaint, leading to the registration of FIR and subsequent arrest of Naveen Yadav.
Contentions of the Applicant:
Counsel for the applicant contended that Naveen Yadav had been falsely implicated. He highlighted a WhatsApp message from the complainant herself, denying any physical intimacy or inappropriate incident in the hotel room, directly contradicting the FIR. The counsel relied on Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that a consensual relationship based on genuine intent to marry, which later fails, does not amount to rape. It was also argued that the applicant’s sudden arrest caused him loss of employment abroad and a three-year work ban in the UAE, in addition to reputational harm. The applicant undertook to cooperate fully with the investigation, appear before the Trial Court on all dates, and refrain from contacting or influencing the complainant or witnesses.
The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and arguing that there was a real risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence. They noted that prior bail applications had already been dismissed by the Rohini Courts.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the complainant’s WhatsApp message contradicted the FIR, and that a failed matrimonial promise based on initially genuine intentions does not constitute rape. The Court noted, "It seems to be an unfortunate case where two consenting adults entered into a relationship with the initial intention of exploring the possibility of marriage. However, after getting to know each other better, one party chose not to proceed with the alliance. This legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise."
Regarding alleged blackmail and dowry demands, the Court clarified that even if assumed true, such claims are distinct offences triable under separate provisions and are generally bailable. The Court also emphasized that continued detention would cause undue hardship, particularly when the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.
The Court further highlighted that the applicant posed no risk of absconding, had deep societal roots, and that the primary purpose of bail, to ensure the accused’s presence during trial, would be sufficiently secured through personal bond and surety.
The decision of the Court:
Taking a comprehensive view, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Naveen Yadav, subject to furnishing a personal bond with solvent surety and complying with any conditions imposed by the Trial Court. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not influence the trial proceedings.
Case Title: Naveen Yadav vs. State Nct of Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 3776/2025
Coram: Justice Arun Monga
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Jitender Tyagi, Gaurav Bidhuri
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sanjeev Sabharwal (APP)
Picture Source :
