Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Married Rape Accused; Finds Woman Continued Relationship After Learning of His Marriage, Making False-Promise Allegation Prima Facie Doubtful
Delhi High Court Grants Regular Bail in Rape Case; Finds Circumstances Prima Facie Show Consensual Relationship Rather Than Sex Induced by Deception
Facts
The petitioner, Vimal, sought regular bail in FIR No. 159/2026 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj North for offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.
According to the prosecution, the 29-year-old prosecutrix and the petitioner met while working at the same establishment in December 2023 and gradually became close friends.
The accused allegedly proposed marriage, following which the prosecutrix entered into consensual physical relations with him on several occasions.
On 4 April 2024, the accused allegedly took her to a hotel in Mahipalpur and again established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. The couple subsequently stayed at the same hotel on as many as 17 occasions.
The prosecutrix allegedly conceived twice and underwent abortions on both occasions.
She later discovered that the petitioner was already married and had two children. When confronted, he allegedly told her that divorce proceedings with his wife were pending.
The prosecutrix continued the sexual relationship but subsequently discovered that no divorce proceedings were pending and that the accused continued residing with his wife.
Issues
The principal issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a prosecution for rape allegedly arising from sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage.
The Court specifically examined:
- Whether the relationship appeared prima facie consensual between two adults.
- Whether the prosecutrix’s consent was prima facie vitiated by a false assurance of marriage.
- What significance should be attached to the prosecutrix continuing the relationship after discovering that the petitioner was already married with two children.
- Whether the petitioner’s extramarital relationship itself could be treated as criminal conduct.
- Whether continued incarceration was necessary after filing of the charge-sheet.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused argued that the case arose from a consensual relationship between two adults.
According to him, the prosecutrix had falsely implicated him after he began insisting that she repay a loan allegedly advanced by him.
The defence also relied upon screenshots of text conversations exchanged between the prosecutrix and the petitioner’s wife.
According to the defence, those conversations demonstrated circumstances inconsistent with the prosecution’s allegation that the relationship had been induced by a fraudulent promise of marriage.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed bail and submitted that during visits to the Mahipalpur hotel, the petitioner had produced a fake identity card belonging to another woman, while the prosecutrix impersonated that woman.
The prosecution further argued that a married man entering into sexual relations with an unmarried woman was itself “unpardonable.”
Counsel for the prosecutrix argued that the very foundation of the relationship was fraudulent because she had agreed to sexual relations on the accused’s false assurance that he would marry her.
It was also submitted that releasing the accused on bail could expose the prosecutrix to threats.
Analysis of the Law
The Court recognised the seriousness of an allegation that a man induced a woman to enter into sexual relations by making a false assurance of marriage.
At the same time, it stressed the necessity of distinguishing between:
- a genuinely consensual sexual relationship between adults; and
- consent that was obtained or continued because of a false representation of marriage.
The Court observed that only a consensual sexual relationship “tainted” by a false assurance to marry would attract criminal consequences on the theory advanced by the prosecution. A purely consensual relationship cannot subsequently be criminalised merely by adding an allegation that marriage had been promised.
The Court therefore considered the entire factual timeline and conduct of the parties, rather than examining the allegation of promise of marriage in isolation.
Morality Distinguished From Criminality
The Court specifically rejected the prosecution’s contention that a married man’s sexual relationship outside marriage was, by itself, sufficient to justify criminal treatment.
It held that such conduct may fall within the realm of morality or constitute a matrimonial wrong, but it must be distinguished from a criminal offence.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not cite or undertake a detailed analysis of any reported precedent on false promise of marriage, consent or bail.
Instead, the Court’s determination is primarily factual and based upon the chronology of the relationship, the conduct of the prosecutrix after discovering the petitioner’s marital status, the hotel visits, the alleged impersonation and the subsequent communications with the petitioner’s wife.
The central principle applied by the Court is that, at the bail stage, it must scrutinise whether the material prima facie indicates that the sexual relationship was genuinely consensual or whether the consent was induced by deception concerning marriage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court placed substantial emphasis on the prosecutrix being a 29-year-old working woman and on the prolonged nature of the relationship.
The parties had been colleagues for approximately four months before they first entered into sexual relations in April 2024. The Court considered it difficult, prima facie, to accept that during this period she would have remained unaware of the petitioner’s marital status.
More importantly, even accepting the prosecution’s case, the prosecutrix admittedly discovered in October 2024 that the petitioner was married and had two children.
Despite acquiring this knowledge, she thereafter stayed with him at the Mahipalpur hotel on 11 further occasions and underwent two abortions.
The Court found it difficult to accept that, after discovering that the petitioner had falsely represented himself as unmarried, she would again unquestioningly rely upon his representation that divorce proceedings were pending.
It also noted that there was no explanation as to why she did not ask him to produce documentary proof of the alleged divorce proceedings while continuing the relationship until the FIR was lodged in May 2026.
Fake Identity Card Circumstance
The Court also considered the prosecution’s own allegation regarding the first hotel visit.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner produced a fake identity card of another woman and instructed the prosecutrix to impersonate that woman.
The Court considered it relevant that the prosecutrix nevertheless participated in the alleged misrepresentation rather than becoming suspicious about the petitioner’s intentions.
This circumstance was regarded as inconsistent, at least prima facie, with the allegation that she continued the relationship solely because she genuinely believed that he intended to marry her.
Chats With Accused’s Wife
The Court also examined screenshots of conversations between the prosecutrix and the accused’s wife from March 2026.
It noted that those chats showed the prosecutrix threatening the accused’s wife, whereas the FIR was lodged only in May 2026.
Taking these circumstances cumulatively, the Court formed a prima facie view that the sexual relations were consensual and were not tainted by a false assurance of marriage or cheating.
The Court expressly clarified that these observations were confined to the bail application and would not bind the Trial Court, which must independently decide the case on the evidence led during trial.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the material before it prima facie indicated a consensual relationship between two adults, rather than sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage.
A significant consideration was that the prosecutrix continued the relationship for a substantial period even after admittedly discovering that the accused was already married and had two children.
The Court further held that an extramarital sexual relationship may raise issues of morality or matrimonial wrongdoing, but cannot for that reason alone be equated with a criminal offence.
The petitioner had been in custody since 15 May 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed. The Court therefore found no justification for further deprivation of his liberty.
Accordingly, the bail application was allowed, and Vimal was directed to be released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount.
He was also directed not to contact any prosecution witness, failing which appropriate legal action could be taken.
Case Details
Case: Vimal v. State NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 2303/2026; CNR No. DLHC010264512026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 18 August 2026
Result: Regular bail granted in FIR under Sections 376/506 IPC; Court prima facie found the sexual relationship consensual and not tainted by a false assurance of marriage, subject to the Trial Court independently deciding the merits
