In an application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail regarding a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, subject to a few conditions.
The applicant came into contact with the prosecutrix through Instagram for business in 2021. They developed a friendship and started communicating regularly. In June 2021, the applicant visited the prosecutrix’s house and expressed his wish to marry her in the presence of her family members. The prosecutrix’s family agreed to the marriage after the applicant and his sister assured them that they had no demands.
On 21-05-2023, the applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix, and, upon the prosecutrix expressing distress, the applicant reassured her that they would perform an engagement ceremony after consulting his sister. Thereafter, whenever the applicant was on leave, he took the prosecutrix to hotels, where he used to present different IDs to establish physical relations with her.
After their engagement on 01-05-2024, the applicant continued to take the prosecutrix to hotels to establish physical relations until March 2025. After this, the applicant stopped communicating with the prosecutrix, and eventually, the applicant and his sister demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- as dowry for the solemnisation of the marriage. Thereafter, the prosecutrix learned that the applicant had fixed his marriage elsewhere and was already engaged to someone else.
The prosecutrix confronted the applicant, but he threatened her by saying that he would upload her explicit photos and videos on social media. On 04-09-2025, the applicant assaulted the prosecutrix and fled when he, along with his sister and a few other people, came to meet her. The prosecutrix then informed the police, and a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) was registered on 06-09-2025.
Based on her complaint, a medical examination was conducted, and the said FIR was registered. It was mentioned that the applicant did not join the investigation despite notices being pasted at his house, and on 24-11-2025, non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which directed him to join the investigation, but he again failed to do so.
The applicant contended that during the period of their relationship, they had performed an engagement ceremony with the prosecutrix, showing that there was no false promise of marriage and that the case was one of souring of a relationship. A communication dated 22-07-2025 by the prosecutrix to the SHO was presented before the Court, wherein no such allegation was made.
The Court perused the evidence on record in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 and stated that while a delay in registration of an FIR may not by itself be conclusive in a case with allegations of sexual offences, it was significant that in the present case, the prosecutrix had made a prior complaint to the police where no such allegation was made.
Further, the Court noted that the NCR also was regarding physical assault, but no allegation of rape was made. The allegation of rape was made for the first time in her complaint dated 15-09-2025, based upon which, the said FIR was registered.
The Court stated that there was a possibility that a physical relationship may have been made without a promise of marriage and that the pre-marriage rituals, the duration of the relationship, as well as the contents of the complaint dated 22-07-2025, rendered prima facie plausibility to the applicant’s case. Hence, the Court allowed the application.
It was directed that, in case of arrest in connection with the said FIR, the applicant be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount. The applicant was directed to join the investigation, to keep his mobile number operational and switched on at all times, to furnish his address, to refrain from influencing any witness, and not commit any offence during the pendency of the proceedings.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Mr. Karan Chopra
For Respondent – Ms. Manjeet Arya (APP), Mr. Vishal Chaudhary
