The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage, taking note of material showing that nine different profiles were allegedly created on a matrimonial website using different names, particulars, mobile numbers and email IDs.
Justice Girish Kathpalia was hearing the bail application in connection with an FIR registered at Karol Bagh Police Station under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the woman had met the accused through a matrimonial website in October 2024 and the two began meeting with the intention of getting married. She alleged that he induced her into sexual relations by assuring her that they would marry, but subsequently kept postponing the marriage. She further alleged that he later showed her obscene photographs and threatened to circulate them.
The Court noted that investigation had revealed nine different profiles allegedly operated on the matrimonial website. The profiles carried different names, ages, qualifications, occupations and income details. One of the profiles was allegedly created in the name of a woman. A witness from the matrimonial website had also testified before the trial court that the distinct profiles were created by the accused.
The State also informed the Court about an audio recording allegedly containing an admission that several women had been cheated in a similar manner and that objectionable photographs of the prosecutrix had been taken. The recording was subsequently placed before the trial court for forensic analysis after a change of investigating officer.
Opposing bail, the State submitted that several women had allegedly been cheated through the different matrimonial profiles and that some potential victims were reluctant to come forward. It also argued that the trial was at an advanced stage and that there was a possibility of the accused absconding if released on bail.
The defence disputed the prosecution’s case and argued, among other things, that there was no cogent material establishing that the nine profiles had been created by the accused. It was also submitted that he had been in custody since November 6, 2025, and that the trial was at its fag end.
The Court, however, held that it was not a fit case for grant of bail and dismissed the application. It clarified that its observations would not prejudice either side and that the trial court would independently assess the evidence at the stage of final arguments.
