Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Alleged False Promise of Marriage Case: “Inducement or Deception Can Only Be Determined After Trial,” Highlights Consent in Adult Relationships and Completeness of Investigation

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated February 12, 2025, granted regular bail to the accused in a case filed under Sections 376 (rape) and 313 (causing miscarriage without consent) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The court observed that “whether there was any inducement or false promise to marry can be determined only after trial,” and allowed the bail, citing that the investigation was complete, and the accused had been in custody since October 2024.

The bail was granted on the condition that the accused comply with certain stringent terms, including surrendering his passport, furnishing a bail bond, and refraining from contacting the prosecutrix or influencing witnesses.

Facts

1. Meeting on a Dating App: The accused and the prosecutrix met on a dating app, Bumble, in March 2024. The prosecutrix stated that she made her intention clear at the beginning that she was only interested in a serious relationship leading to marriage. Over time, they exchanged contact details and became close.
2. Physical Relationship and Alleged Promise of Marriage:
   • The prosecutrix alleged that the accused promised to marry her, which led to the development of a physical relationship. She claimed that the accused emotionally coerced her into the relationship under this pretext.
   • The prosecutrix became pregnant twice. She alleged that the accused emotionally abused her to terminate the first pregnancy, while she refused to terminate the second pregnancy.
3. Dispute and Alleged Pressure for Abortion:
   • The prosecutrix claimed that the accused and his family pressured her to abort the second pregnancy and avoid marriage.
   • She alleged that the accused proposed a live-in relationship instead of marriage, further exacerbating the situation.
4. Counterclaims by the Accused:
   • The accused argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and initiated on mutual terms. He alleged that the prosecutrix was attempting to extort money from him.
   • The accused cited evidence of financial transactions, including ₹8 lakhs transferred to the prosecutrix, and claimed the prosecutrix was pressuring him to sell his property.

Issues

1. Whether the physical relationship was induced by a false promise of marriage.
2. Whether the accused should be granted bail pending the conclusion of the trial.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Consensual Relationship:
   • The accused argued that the relationship was consensual, as evidenced by the prosecutrix’s actions, including her extended stay at his residence and her participation in planning social gatherings.
   • He highlighted that they met on a dating app, primarily meant for casual relationships, which underscored the absence of a serious commitment from the beginning.
2. Delay in Filing FIR:
   • The FIR was registered six months after the relationship began, raising questions about the prosecutrix’s intent.
3. Contradictions in Statements:
   • The accused pointed out discrepancies in the prosecutrix’s statements under Section 164 of the CrPC and her refusal to provide her phone for investigation, suggesting she was concealing information.
4. No Risk of Absconding:
   • The accused assured the court that he belonged to a respectable family and was willing to comply with all legal processes.
5. Prolonged Trial:
   • Citing precedents like Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012), the accused argued that prolonged custody was unwarranted, especially since the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. False Promise of Marriage:
   • The prosecutrix argued that the accused intentionally deceived her into a physical relationship by making false promises of marriage.
   • She emphasized that she would not have consented to the relationship had the accused not assured her of marriage.
2. Emotional and Physical Exploitation:
   • The prosecutrix claimed that the accused manipulated her emotionally and physically, forcing her to terminate the first pregnancy.
3. Family’s Opposition:
   • The prosecutrix alleged that the accused’s family actively discouraged the marriage and supported the accused in pressuring her for an abortion.
4. Gravity of Offense:
   • The prosecutrix emphasized the severity of the charges and argued that granting bail would undermine her case and embolden the accused.

Analysis of the Law

The court focused on two primary issues:

1. Consent Under Deception:
   • The court analyzed whether the prosecutrix’s consent for the physical relationship was vitiated due to the accused’s alleged false promise of marriage.
   • It emphasized that this question required detailed examination during the trial.
2. Bail Principles:
   • The court referred to established principles for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious allegations. It emphasized the need to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the gravity of the offense.
   • The court relied on precedents like Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) to underscore that bail should not be denied solely based on the nature of the allegations if the investigation is complete and the accused is cooperating.

Precedent Analysis

1. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012):
   • The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of individual liberty and stated that bail should not be denied unless there is a risk of the accused absconding or influencing the trial.
2. Jitendra vs. State of NCT Delhi (2016):
   • The Delhi High Court emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between consensual relationships and those involving coercion or deceit.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Prosecutrix’s Age and Awareness:
   • The court noted that the prosecutrix, a 27-year-old working professional, had the capacity to make informed decisions about her relationships.
2. Consent and Inducement:
   • The court observed that the question of whether the accused’s promises amounted to deception could only be resolved during trial.
3. Complete Investigation:
   • The court acknowledged that the investigation was complete, and the chargesheet had been filed, reducing the likelihood of tampering with evidence.
4. Prolonged Custody:
   • The court found no justification for prolonged custody since the accused was cooperating with the legal process.

Conclusion

The court granted regular bail to the accused, subject to the following conditions:

1. Furnishing a bail bond of ₹35,000 with a surety.
2. Surrendering his passport and refraining from leaving the country without court permission.
3. Refraining from contacting the prosecutrix or influencing witnesses.
4. Providing updated contact and residential details to the investigating officer.

Implications

This judgment highlights the court’s careful consideration of the balance between the accused’s right to liberty and the prosecutrix’s allegations of exploitation. It underscores the principle that serious allegations must be substantiated through trial and not presumed at the stage of bail. The case also illustrates the challenges in navigating relationships initiated on casual platforms and their legal repercussions.

Also Read – High Court of Delhi Appoints Justice (Retd.) Hrishikesh Roy as Sole Arbitrator in Loan Agreement Dispute: “The Scope at Section 11 Stage is Limited to the Existence of an Arbitration Agreement,” Invalidates Biased Arbitration Clause, and Leaves Limitation Issues to Arbitrator