Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed a bail plea, holding that allegations of false promise to marry, blackmail, and threats to make private photographs viral require serious consideration. The case pertained to an accused seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court underscored that while women’s safety must be ensured courts also have a duty to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
The petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) read with Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. (previously Section 439 Cr.P.C.) and Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in an FIR registered at Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi. According to the application, the petitioner had been in custody since May 30, 2024.
The petitioner contended that the prosecutrix, a 24-year-old independent woman, had been in a consensual relationship with him for a significant period, with plans of marriage. Their families were aware of their relationship, and they frequently travelled together, including staying in hotels where the prosecutrix willingly provided identification. The petitioner claimed that their intimacy was consensual and that there was no coercion or force involved. He further alleged that after discovering the prosecutrix was seeing someone else, their relationship soured, leading to a false complaint against him out of vendetta.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no incriminating evidence against him. The petitioner, belonging to a respectable family, was the sole breadwinner, and his prolonged incarceration was causing financial distress. Further, he assured the court that he would not tamper with evidence or contact the prosecutrix.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, asserting that the allegations against the petitioner were grave, including the false promise to marry, blackmail, and threats of making private photographs public. The prosecutrix had also tested positive for pregnancy, adding to the seriousness of the matter. The prosecution maintained that granting bail would endanger the complainant and the trial process.
The Court, while analysing the case, acknowledged the evolving societal norms where workplace relationships often lead to legal disputes when they turn sour. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 18 SCC 191], the Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and allegations of rape. The Court further noted that breach of a promise to marry, in the absence of any malicious intent, does not necessarily amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.
The Court observed, "In the present times, many a time close proximity at the workplace results in consensual relationships which, on turning sour, get reported as crimes. It becomes pertinent to be conscious of the distinction between the offence of rape and consensual sex between two adults. The Court must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the accused or had mala fide motives. There is also a distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise. If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the complainant, such an act would not amount to rape."
The Court ultimately decided to grant bail to the applicant, subject to conditions including furnishing a bail bond and ensuring no interference with the trial process. The applicant was also required to keep the SHO/IO informed about his contact details and location.
Case Title: Abhijeet Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Citation: Bail Appln. 104/2025
Order Date: 10.02.2025
Coram: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Ranjana Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ritika Verma, Harsh Vardhan Mittal
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Meenakshi Dahiya (A.P.P. for State), Priyanka Kumar, Ravi Saroha
Picture Source :
