DELHI HIGH COURT GRANTS ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN RAPE CASE ALLEGING FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The matter arose out of an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in connection with an FIR registered at Chittaranjan Park Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecutrix, a 28-year-old professional, alleged that she came into contact with the accused during a work project in 2019. Their professional interactions soon turned into a personal relationship. She claimed that the accused concealed his marital status and, on the false promise of marriage, initiated and continued a sexual relationship with her over several years. The relationship included frequent meetings, travels, and introductions to his family members, all while she remained unaware of his existing marriage. The prosecutrix eventually discovered the truth in early 2023 during a trip abroad and lodged a complaint in April 2025.

2. CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED)

The accused argued that the FIR was based on an unusually long and improbable narrative. It was contended that the prosecutrix, being well-educated and financially independent, could not have been so gullible as to maintain a long-term relationship without realizing the accused’s marital status. The defense also stressed that the prosecutrix herself admitted to meeting his family multiple times, which made it difficult to believe she remained unaware of his marriage. Further, it was pointed out that she suspected inconsistencies in his behavior as early as 2020, yet continued the relationship for years, indicating that it was consensual. The delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint after discovering the alleged deceit in January 2023 was also highlighted as casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

3. CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT (PROSECUTRIX AND STATE)

Counsel for the prosecutrix opposed the anticipatory bail plea, arguing that the delay in filing the FIR could not be a ground to discard the complaint. It was emphasized that the prosecutrix had been residing abroad and lodged the complaint soon after returning to India. The State, however, did not raise a strong objection to bail, pointing out that the chargesheet had already been filed.

4. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

The primary issue before the court was whether the accused was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations made, the delay in filing the FIR, and the circumstances surrounding the prolonged relationship between the parties.

5. COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

The court observed that the facts, as presented, indicated a prolonged consensual relationship between the parties. It was found implausible that the prosecutrix, given her background and repeated visits to the accused’s family home, could have remained unaware of his marital status for years. The court also noted that the prosecutrix could have lodged a complaint at the time she allegedly discovered the truth in early 2023, even from abroad. The delay in initiating criminal proceedings, therefore, could not be reasonably explained. Importantly, the court clarified that these observations were confined to the bail application and should not prejudice the trial proceedings.

6. RELEVANT LAWS

The case revolved around Section 376 IPC (rape) and the legal principles concerning relationships formed under the alleged false promise of marriage. The court also considered the provisions of law relating to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

7. FINAL JUDGMENT

After considering the circumstances, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused. It directed that in the event of arrest, he be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the like amount. The accused was further directed to cooperate with the investigation as and when required.

DATE OF DECISION

04.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

BAIL APPLN. 2750/2025