Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court held that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner appeared prima facie to be a consensual extramarital affair, and that it was “not believable that across such long period of relationship, the prosecutrix would have remained in dark about marital status of the accused.”
MANISH
The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to joining investigation as and when required.
Facts
The FIR was lodged by a 28-year-old prosecutrix, an educated consultant frequently travelling abroad. She alleged that in 2019, during a professional project under the Ministry of Women & Child Development, she came into contact with the accused, employed at PricewaterhouseCoopers India. Their professional interactions developed into a personal relationship, with the accused proposing marriage in July 2019 and inducing her into a sexual relationship.
Over the years, they met frequently, travelled together to places like Agra, Goa, and Nainital, and the prosecutrix bore most expenses from her modest salary. She claimed that she remained unaware of the accused’s marriage, despite meeting his family members and visiting his residences multiple times.
In January 2023, during a trip to Europe funded by her, she discovered through his mobile phone that he was already married and dating other women. Upon confronting him, she was allegedly slapped. She returned abroad and ultimately filed a complaint in April 2025 upon coming back to India.
The accused sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and long-standing, and the FIR was lodged with extraordinary delay.
Issues
- Whether the long-term sexual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix could be considered rape on the ground of false promise to marry.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR undermined the credibility of the allegations.
- Whether anticipatory bail could be granted despite seriousness of allegations under Section 376 IPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the FIR was based on an extraordinarily long narrative, inconsistent with a case of forced sexual assault. He emphasized that the prosecutrix was highly educated, financially independent, and frequently abroad, making it implausible that she would be deceived for years.
He argued that her continued visits to his home, interactions with his family, and suspicions since January 2020 showed that the relationship was consensual. The extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR, despite her alleged discovery of his marital status in January 2023, further cast doubt on her version. According to him, this was a clear case of consensual extramarital relations being retrospectively projected as rape.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecutrix’s counsel opposed the bail, arguing that delay in filing the FIR was explained as she was living abroad and took action soon after returning to India. They argued that consent obtained under false pretences, particularly a false promise of marriage, vitiates consent under Section 376 IPC.
The State, however, noted that since the chargesheet had already been filed, there was no serious objection to grant of anticipatory bail, provided the accused cooperates in investigation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted the settled principle that in cases of alleged sexual relations under false promise of marriage, the distinction between breach of promise and false promise must be carefully examined. A false promise, made from inception with no intent to marry, may amount to rape. But if a relationship develops consensually over years, involving mutual affection, travel, and family interactions, it cannot later be converted into an offence of rape.
The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix’s profile—educated, financially independent, and globally mobile—made it implausible that she remained unaware of the petitioner’s marital status for years. The long delay in filing the FIR, without any explanation why complaint could not be lodged abroad, further weakened her case.
Precedent Analysis
- Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46 – Held that consensual physical relations under a promise to marry, if the promise was not false from inception, do not constitute rape. Relevant in distinguishing breach of promise from false promise.
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Clarified that false promise of marriage amounts to rape only if it was made with no intention of being fulfilled from the beginning.
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Recognized that relationships involving mutual love and consensual intimacy cannot be retrospectively categorized as rape when marriage does not fructify.
These precedents guided the Court in concluding that the present case bore hallmarks of a consensual relationship rather than a false promise-induced sexual assault.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the FIR narrated a prolonged relationship spanning over four years, marked by repeated meetings, foreign trips, and even introduction to family members. It was unrealistic to believe that the prosecutrix remained in the dark about his marital status.
The Court also rejected her explanation for delay, noting that she could have lodged a complaint even while abroad. Her independent profile suggested she was not constrained from initiating action earlier.
Thus, prima facie, the case appeared to be one of consensual extramarital relations, and no sufficient grounds existed to deprive the petitioner of his liberty.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing release of the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety. He was also directed to cooperate with the investigation.
Implications
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in false promise to marry cases, emphasizing the need to distinguish consensual long-term relationships from situations involving fraud. It protects liberty where allegations lack credibility due to prolonged intimacy, family involvement, and unexplained delays in complaint. At the same time, it reiterates that trial courts remain free to independently assess evidence at the final stage.
FAQs
1. Can a long consensual relationship be treated as rape if marriage does not happen?
Not necessarily. Courts distinguish between breach of promise and false promise. Only if the promise was false from inception can it amount to rape.
2. Why was delay in lodging the FIR relevant in this case?
Because the prosecutrix discovered the accused’s marital status in January 2023 but lodged the FIR in April 2025, which the Court found unexplained and indicative of consensual relations.
3. Does anticipatory bail mean acquittal?
No. Anticipatory bail only protects liberty during investigation; trial courts will independently assess evidence for final outcome.