In a bail application filed before the Delhi High Court seeking grant of regular bail in a case arising out of a First Information Report (FIR) for the commission of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma questioned the genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant and refused to grant him bail.
On 03-01-2026, the prosecutrix alleged sexual exploitation and deceit by the applicant on the pretext of false marriage. It was alleged that the applicant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions after assuring her of marriage.
Subsequently, the applicant refused to marry her on the grounds that their birth charts (kundalis) did not match, stating that his family strongly believed in astrology. The prosecutrix had filed a written complaint, which she withdrew after the applicant and his family assured her that they would solemnize the marriage.
Upon failure of the assurance, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint, which led to the registration of the present FIR. After her medical examination, the prosecutrix alleged that the applicant had also threatened to leak her photographs.
The Court noted that the parties had known each other since college and had been in a relationship for several years. Considering the evidence on record, the Court stated that the applicant had, on several occasions, assured the prosecutrix of marriage and had represented that there was no impediment to their marriage. The Court perused the couple’s chats and further noted that the applicant had sought the birth details of the prosecutrix and assured her that the horoscopes had matched.
The Court stated that the sequence of events could not be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour, but rather suggested that assurances regarding marriage were repeatedly extended despite the applicant being aware of his family’s insistence on kundali matching. Thus, the Court said that the applicant’s stand was inconsistent with his own conduct and representations made over the years.
Considering the representation by the applicant that the horoscopes had already matched, the Court stated that the subsequent refusal to marry on grounds of non-matching of the horoscopes raised a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant. It was said that such conduct would attract an offence under Section 69 of BNS. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the chargesheet had not yet been filed, the Court denied bail to the applicant and dismissed the application.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sandeep Sharma (Sr. Adv), Mr. Kuldeep Choudhary, Mr. Amit Choudhary
For Respondent – Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar (APP)
