Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to grant regular bail to an accused booked under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, holding that repeated assurances of marriage, despite apparent knowledge of familial and astrological objections, prima facie disclosed a case of sexual relations induced by deceit. Refusing to treat the matter as a mere “relationship gone sour,” the Court made a pointed observation that if kundali matching was truly determinative, it “should have been resolved at the threshold before entering into physical relations.”
Brief Facts:
The case arose out of FIR No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi, on a complaint dated 03.01.2026 by a 27-year-old prosecutrix alleging sexual exploitation on the false pretext of marriage. According to the status report, the parties had known each other since 2018 and were in a relationship since their college days. The prosecutrix alleged that physical relations were established on multiple occasions, beginning in July 2019, at various locations including the applicant’s residence and a hotel in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, on the repeated assurance of marriage. She further alleged that the applicant ultimately refused to marry her in June 2025 citing non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier representations that the horoscopes were compatible.
A prior complaint lodged in November 2025 was withdrawn upon assurances from the applicant and his family that the marriage would be solemnised, however, when no steps were taken, a fresh complaint led to registration of offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 69 BNS. During investigation, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS was recorded before the learned Magistrate, her medical examination was conducted, and the applicant’s mobile phone was seized and sent to FSL for data extraction, including WhatsApp chats allegedly evidencing repeated promises of marriage.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned senior counsel for the applicant contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and had endured for nearly eight years. It was argued that the applicant had genuinely intended to marry the complainant, and that the only reason the marriage did not materialise was the non-matching of kundalis, a factor rooted in familial belief rather than deceit. Relying on judicial precedents distinguishing a mere breach of promise from a false promise made ab initio, counsel submitted that criminal liability under rape provisions cannot be invoked merely because a consensual relationship ultimately failed. The applicant, in custody since 04.01.2026, was thus stated to be entitled to regular bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Opposing the plea, counsel for the prosecutrix argued that WhatsApp conversations clearly revealed that the applicant had repeatedly assured her that the kundalis had matched and that no impediment existed to their marriage. It was further submitted that the chats reflected her reluctance to engage in physical relations prior to marriage and that she allegedly yielded under sustained persuasion coupled with assurances of imminent marriage. The learned APP for the State supplemented these submissions, contending that the allegations were serious in nature, investigation was at a crucial stage, and the chargesheet was yet to be filed, thereby disentitling the applicant from the discretionary relief of bail.
Observations of the Court:
The Court undertook a prima facie assessment of the complaint, the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 BNSS, and the electronic communications between the parties. It noted that the applicant had not only sought the prosecutrix’s birth details for horoscope matching but had also repeatedly represented that the issue stood resolved. Significantly, in a chat dated 14.09.2023, the applicant wrote, “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum,” which, according to the Court, “prima facie demonstrates that the aspect of kundali matching was already represented by the applicant as having been resolved.” The Court observed that despite such assurances, physical relations allegedly continued over the years on the foundation of a promised marriage.
Rejecting the argument that this was merely a failed relationship, the Court remarked that “the sequence of events, at this stage, cannot be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour.” It emphasised the settled distinction in law between a genuine promise that subsequently fails and a false assurance given from inception to secure consent. While acknowledging that “criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship fails or marriage does not materialise,” the Court found that the present case “stands on a different footing.” The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching kundalis, despite earlier representations that horoscopes had matched, “prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended.”
Such conduct, the Court noted, would attract Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically addresses sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage. At the stage of bail, the Court reiterated, the inquiry is limited to whether the material discloses a prima facie case and whether bail principles justify release, both of which weighed against the applicant.
The decision of the Court:
Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for regular bail, holding that in light of the serious allegations, corroborative electronic material, and the ongoing investigation with chargesheet yet to be filed, no case for grant of bail was made out.
The ratio emerging from the order underscores that where prima facie material suggests repeated assurances of marriage contrary to known impediments, thereby inducing consent for physical relations, the case transcends a mere breach of promise and may fall within the statutory ambit of deceit under Section 69 BNS, disentitling the accused from bail at the threshold stage.
Case Title: Jayant Vats Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi),
Case No.: Bail Appln. 422/2026
Coram: Hon’ble. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Kuldeep Choudhary, Adv. Amit Choudhary,
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
