In a significant ruling dealing with claims of sexual relations induced on a promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused, holding that concealment of a subsisting relationship and children may prima facie indicate a 'dishonest intention from inception.'
Court's Observations
A single-judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined relief to the applicant, observing that the prosecutrix appeared to have entered into the relationship 'under a misconception of facts' arising from the promise of marriage extended to her. The case required the Court to examine whether a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage could be treated as consensual when material facts about the accused's existing relationship were concealed. While considering the matter at the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court emphasized that such issues are to be assessed on a prima facie basis, having regard to the available material, including the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered on 29.10.2025 based on a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, who alleged that she came into contact with the accused in 2023 while working at a restaurant and during her visits to a gym in Rohini. According to the prosecution, the accused proposed marriage to her and, on the basis of such assurance, established physical relations with her. It was further alleged that the relationship continued over a period of time on the same promise. The complaint added that in September 2025, the prosecutrix found out that she was pregnant and informed the same to the accused, who advised her to abort the baby. The pregnancy was then aborted using medication. The prosecutrix also claimed that the accused had promised her numerous times and yet he declined to get married to her before revealing that he was already married. Medical records later confirmed that the prosecutrix had again become pregnant and underwent medical termination at a government hospital. The products of conception were seized and sent for forensic examination.
Arguments of the Accused
Seeking anticipatory bail, the accused argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not induced by any deception. It was argued that the prosecutrix, being a major, had voluntarily entered into the relationship. The defence also argued that she was aware of his relationship with another woman, Zeenat Parveen, and therefore no false promise of marriage could be alleged. The applicant also tried to differentiate his status by asserting that he was not married legally to Zeenat Parveen but that he was having a live-in relationship with her. On this basis, it was argued that any promise of marriage made to the prosecutrix could not be considered false.
Arguments of the State and Prosecutrix
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution and counsel for the prosecutrix argued that the applicant had deliberately concealed crucial facts. It was argued that the accused was living with Zeenat Parveen and had two children from the relationship, facts that were never disclosed to the prosecutrix. The State also argued that prosecutrix had agreed to the relationship based on the assumption that the accused wanted to marry her, and such consent was vitiated by deception. The prosecution also highlighted the conduct of the accused, including his failure to join investigation despite notice and his attempt to mislead the Sessions Court by claiming that the prosecutrix herself was married.
Investigation Findings
The Court took note of the investigation carried out by the police, which revealed that the accused had two children with Zeenat Parveen and that a marriage ceremony had been performed between them. The inquiry report further indicated that although the marriage was not formally registered, the couple had been living together and the accused's family had accepted the relationship. Photographs placed on record showed family members participating in ceremonies related to the birth of the children, and birth certificates named the accused as the father. These materials, according to the Court, prima facie established that the accused was in a stable, subsisting relationship, which had not been fully disclosed to the prosecutrix.
WhatsApp Chats: No Proof of Full Disclosure
The defence relied on WhatsApp chats to argue that the prosecutrix was aware of the accused's relationship with Zeenat Parveen. However, the Court found that while the name 'Zeenat' appeared in some conversations, there was nothing to indicate that the prosecutrix was aware that the accused had children or was living with her in a settled domestic arrangement. The Court noted that mere mention of a name did not amount to disclosure of material facts such as an existing family structure or children.
Court's Key Findings
A central observation of the Court was that the material on record indicated a possible dishonest intention on the part of the accused from the beginning. The Court recorded: 'The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the applicant herein had dishonest intention from the inception of his relationship with the prosecutrix with regard to the promise of marriage.' Further, the Court held: 'The prosecutrix appears to have entered into the relationship with the applicant under a misconception of facts and on account of the promise of marriage extended by him.' These observations went to the heart of the case, as they suggested that the issue was not merely one of a failed relationship but one involving deception affecting consent.
Rejection of Defence Arguments
The Court also dealt with the defence argument that since the accused was not legally married, the promise of marriage could not be termed false. Rejecting this argument, the Court held that the factual matrix—cohabitation, children, and family acceptance—could not be ignored merely because the relationship lacked formal legal recognition. The Court observed that the circumstances prima facie showed a settled relationship, and non-registration of marriage did not negate the relevance of concealment of such facts.
Conduct of the Accused
Another significant factor weighing against the grant of anticipatory bail was the conduct of the accused. The Court noted that despite service of notice, the applicant had failed to join the investigation. It also took note of allegations that he had attempted to mislead the court during earlier proceedings. On this aspect, the Court held: 'The conduct of the applicant in attempting to mislead the Court, coupled with his failure to join the investigation, does not persuade this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.'
Conclusion
Therefore, considering the allegations, supporting material, and conduct of the accused, the Court concluded that this was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026, ROHIT vs STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR., Date of Decision: 07.04.2026. For Petitioner: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Arpita Mishra, P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi; Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC) for the prosecutrix.
