The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage, observing that the material placed before it prima facie indicated a consensual relationship between the parties and the FIR was lodged after the relationship deteriorated over the issue of marriage.
Prosecutrix appearing in person told the bench of Justice Neena Krishna Bansal that she met the accused for the first time while working together at the same store in November 2024. They subsequently became friends, remained in regular contact, and eventually entered into a relationship. The complainant informed the Court that both had shared details about their families and had visited each other’s homes. She stated that the accused had spoken about marrying her and had introduced her to his family members.
The prosecution alleged that on the accused’s birthday, he hosted a gathering at his residence and invited the complainant. According to the FIR, he allegedly took her upstairs on the pretext of showing her a room and offered her a cold drink. The complainant alleged that after consuming the drink, she became unconscious and later found herself unclothed and in pain. She confronted the accused, who allegedly assured her that he loved her and would marry her. The FIR further alleged that thereafter the accused repeatedly sought money from her and received approximately ₹1 lakh, including ₹40,000 through online transfers and ₹60,000 in cash. It was further alleged that he subsequently refused to marry her and threatened her.
However, during the hearing, the complainant acknowledged that she did not immediately approach the police after the alleged incident. On being questioned by the Court, she stated that she had continued attempting to persuade the accused to marry her. She informed the Court, “I filed this after so many days because I wanted to talk to him. He blocked me from everywhere.” She further stated that she had approached the accused’s family members and had spoken to his sister shortly before the FIR was registered in the hope that the matter could be resolved.
During the hearing, the Court questioned the prosecutrix about the delay of approximately 165 days in lodging the FIR. The prosecutrix explained that she had not immediately approached the police because she was trying to persuade the accused to marry her. She stated, “I filed this after so many days because I wanted to talk to him. He blocked me from everywhere.” She further informed the Court that she had approached the accused’s family members and had spoken to his sister shortly before the FIR was registered in the hope that the matter could be resolved.
The Court then asked the prosecutrix, “What if he agrees to marry you? Are you interested in marriage or not?” The prosecutrix replied, “I am not. Ek mahina ho gaya, aaye hi nahi.”
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked, “Aa jaate, shaadi kar lete toh koi dikkat nahi thi, nahi toh mukadama ban gaya.” The Court then asked her age. Upon being informed that she was 30 years old, the Court observed,
“
“Aap chhoti bacchi bhi nahi hain. Aap samajh ke, jaan kar rishte banate ho aur jab shaadi nahi hoti toh mukadme laga dete ho. Aap toh padhi-likhi, samajhdaar, kaam karne wali ladki hain. Aapko nahi pata jab inhone galat kaam kiya?”
The defence argued that the allegations were false and that the parties had been involved in a consensual relationship for several months. It was submitted that both had introduced each other to their respective families, that family members were aware of their intention to marry, and that they regularly visited each other’s homes. The defence further contended that the complainant was fully aware of the accused’s living conditions and the marriage had been delayed because he was attempting to arrange separate accommodation before settling down.
The defence also highlighted that the FIR was lodged approximately 165 days after the alleged incident. It was submitted that during this period the parties continued meeting each other, visiting restaurants, exchanging gifts, maintaining contact, and engaging in financial transactions. The accused further contended that the complainant had continued visiting his residence and had last visited his house shortly before registration of the FIR.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution submitted that the accused had not joined the investigation and that non-bailable warrants had been obtained against him. It was also alleged that members of the accused’s family were attempting to contact the complainant to settle the dispute.
_____________________________________________
After considering the FIR, the submissions of both sides, the complainant’s statements in Court, and the surrounding circumstances, the Court observed:
“
“It is evident that it is a case of a consensual relationship since November 2024, and when the relationship went sour since the applicant had some reservations about getting married immediately, the complaint has been, FIR has been registered.”
The Court further noted that the complainant was a 30-year-old adult who had worked with the accused and had been in a relationship with him over an extended period. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the relationship, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the material placed before it, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹35,000.