1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of an accused charged with serious offences including rape, unnatural offences, bigamy, dowry-cruelty, criminal intimidation and criminal breach of trust. The Court found strong prima facie evidence showing that the applicant induced the complainant into a sexual relationship and subsequent marriage by concealing his subsisting marriage and by threatening to circulate her intimate photographs. The Court held that the concealment of marital status vitiated consent for sexual relations, making the allegations of rape legally sustainable. It also noted the recovery of the complainant’s scooty and discovery of objectionable images in the applicant’s phone. Trial has not commenced and the complainant’s testimony is yet to be recorded; hence bail was rejected.
2. Facts
A complaint filed on 03.03.2025 alleged dowry demands, cruelty, sexual assault and misappropriation of jewellery by the applicant, the complainant’s husband. Earlier, on 11.02.2025, the complainant had alleged that the accused induced her into a relationship beginning April 2022 by falsely promising marriage and by concealing the fact of an existing marriage with another woman and a child. She stated that the accused forced sexual relations and repeatedly pacified her by reiterating commitment to marry her. The two allegedly married at a religious trust on 06.07.2023 and registered the marriage in Ghaziabad.
Upon cohabitation, the complainant alleged the accused took her jewellery and scooty without consent, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, and threatened to release her private videos if she approached authorities. During investigation, her medical examination was conducted, her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS were recorded, and she submitted jewellery bills, marriage documents and photographs. The accused was arrested on 22.07.2025; chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet followed.
3. Issues
- Whether concealment of the accused’s earlier subsisting marriage, coupled with promise of marriage, prima facie vitiated the complainant’s consent under Section 375 IPC.
- Whether the long-term relationship and subsequent marriage between the parties rendered the sexual relationship consensual.
- Whether the recovery of jewellery and scooty, and FSL findings regarding intimate photographs, corroborated the complainant’s allegations.
- Whether filing of chargesheet and lack of need for custodial interrogation justified bail.
- Whether the pending examination of the complainant and seriousness of allegations warranted continued custody.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The applicant argued that the relationship was consensual from inception. The complainant was an adult and had willingly accompanied him to various places, stayed with him, and eventually married him on 06.07.2023. It was submitted that they cohabited peacefully until 2025, indicating voluntariness. Counsel further argued that the complainant was aware of his prior marriage as early as 2022 and therefore the allegation of concealment was false.
It was also pointed out that the jewellery and scooty had been returned and that a complete chargesheet had been filed, eliminating any need for further custodial interrogation. On these grounds, bail was sought.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed bail, asserting that the accused deliberately misrepresented his marital status and induced the complainant into a sexual relationship under false pretences. The complainant believed she was entering a genuine marital union because of the accused’s deception. The State argued that this vitiated consent under Section 375, attracting the offence of rape.
It was further submitted that the accused threatened to leak intimate photos to silence the complainant, and that FSL results confirmed presence of such images on his mobile phone. The State also emphasised that documents establishing the accused’s prior marriage had been verified and that he may have given false affidavits to religious and registration authorities. Therefore, bail would jeopardise the integrity of the trial.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled legal principles:
(a) Consent obtained by deception is no consent
Where a woman agrees to sexual relations believing the man is unmarried and genuinely intends marriage, her consent is vitiated if such belief is induced by deliberate concealment or misrepresentation.
(b) Subsequent marriage does not neutralise earlier deception
The applicant’s argument that later solemnisation of marriage makes the relationship consensual was rejected. A marriage obtained through concealment of a subsisting marriage is void and cannot retrospectively legitimise earlier sexual conduct.
(c) Threats and digital evidence strengthen material against the accused
The presence of intimate images in the accused’s phone corroborated coercion and threats. This added weight to the complainant’s allegations.
(d) Bail principles require balancing liberty with societal interest
Given the gravity of offences under Sections 376 and 377 IPC, courts must ensure the complainant’s safety and the integrity of the trial. Bail is not favoured when the complainant’s testimony is yet to be recorded.
The Court concluded that deception, bigamy, coercion, and recovery of incriminating material together established strong prima facie involvement.
7. Precedent analysis
Although the judgment does not cite specific cases, it applies settled principles from jurisprudence on consent and deception:
1. Consent under misconception of fact (Section 90 IPC)
Courts have held consistently that where marriage is promised deceitfully or material facts are concealed, consent is invalid for the purposes of Section 375.
2. Bigamy as aggravating factor
Where the accused conceals an existing marriage, courts treat the deception as severe, especially when used to secure sexual relations.
3. Bail in sexual offence cases
High Courts and the Supreme Court repeatedly hold that bail is to be denied when allegations are serious, corroborated by material evidence, and when the complainant is yet to testify.
These principles guided the Court’s decision to deny bail.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found no material supporting the accused’s claim that the complainant knew of his previous marriage. His arguments were speculative and unsupported. Conversely, multiple factors established deception:
• The accused admitted being previously married and having a child.
• He solemnised a second marriage with the complainant at a religious trust while allegedly submitting a false affidavit denying existing marriage.
• He misled her about the tattoo of his first wife’s name.
• The complainant discovered evidence of his first marriage only in February 2025.
• FSL report confirmed existence of her intimate photographs in his mobile phone, supporting allegations of threats.
• The scooty taken without her consent was recovered from the accused.
Given the seriousness of allegations and the strong prima facie material, the Court held that releasing the accused on bail could intimidate the complainant and impede a fair trial.
9. Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the bail application, finding no mitigating circumstances. The concealment of the applicant’s subsisting marriage, the vitiation of consent, the threats supported by FSL data, and the recovery of property all provided sufficient grounds to continue custody. Trial is yet to commence; therefore, liberty must yield to the interests of justice. Nothing in the order was to affect the merits of the trial.
10. Implications
This judgment contributes significantly to jurisprudence on deceptive consent and bigamy-linked sexual offences. It affirms that:
• Intentional concealment of marital status is a grave factor in deciding consent.
• Threats involving digital material strengthen prosecutorial credibility.
• Courts will not grant bail when the complainant’s testimony is pending, especially in offences involving manipulation and coercion.
• False affidavits to religious or registration authorities aggravate culpability.
The ruling underscores a strict approach against deception-based sexual exploitation.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
1. Consent vitiated by deception (Section 90 IPC)
Applied to hold that concealment of marriage undermines voluntariness of consent.
2. Bail principles in sexual offences
Courts deny bail where prima facie evidence is strong and complainant’s testimony is pending.
3. Bigamy as aggravating circumstance
Concealment of subsisting marriage heightens gravity of allegations.
FAQs
1. Why did the Court deny bail despite the parties having married?
Because the marriage itself was obtained through deception—concealment of a subsisting marriage—thereby vitiating consent for earlier sexual relations.
2. How did digital evidence influence the bail decision?
The FSL report revealed intimate images of the complainant, corroborating allegations that the accused threatened to circulate them to silence her.
3. Can concealment of prior marriage amount to rape?
Yes. When a woman consents believing the man is unmarried, and that belief is induced by deceit, consent is invalid under Section 375 read with Section 90 IPC.
