Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 693
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J
Ankit Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 8/2025 | Crl. M.A. 43/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Surya Narayan Singh, Raman Yadav, Priyam Kaushik, Harshith Pottangi, Aashi Arora
For the Respondents: Kiran Bairwa, Soni Lal, Shiv Chopra, Surbhi Arora, Siddharth Arora, Dhanajay
Regular bail in a rape case alleging a false promise to marry may be granted where the petitioner has actually solemnized a marriage with the prosecutrix, thereby casting doubt on the existence of a mala fide intent at the inception of the relationship to deceive the prosecutrix for sexual relations.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - S. 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 376 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - S. 69 - Regular Bail - False promise of marriage - Solemnization of marriage prior to alleged offence - Petitioner in custody - Prima facie no case of deceitful intention - Investigation status confirms marriage - Bail granted.
(B) Bail - Rape - Consent - Section 375 IPC - Misconception of fact - Distinction between breach of promise and false promise - Consent is an act of reason - Evidence must establish lack of intention to marry from the inception - Burden of proof rests on prosecution to show mala fide intent at the initial stage. (Paras 14-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail for an offence under S. 376 IPC, alleging consensual sexual relations on the premise of marriage. The petitioner contended that the parties were married on 21.01.2024, supported by a certificate and status report, arguing that the relationship was consensual and lacked the elements of a false promise to marry as the marriage ceremony had occurred.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the factum of marriage on 21.01.2024 was supported by the records and the prosecutrix's own statements. Consequently, it could not be prima facie concluded that the petitioner had no intention to marry from the inception. The court noted the petitioner was not a flight risk, lacked criminal antecedents, and deemed further custodial interrogation unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the sexual relations were established on a false promise to marry amounting to a misconception of fact vitiating consent under S. 375 IPC, and whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail.
Ratio Decidendi: To establish that consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact due to a promise to marry, the prosecution must prove that the promise was false ab initio, given in bad faith, and had no intention of being adhered to at the time it was made. Since the marriage was actually solemnized, the intention was not prima facie mala fide.
Result: Bail granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties argument regarding bail in sexual offense case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. judicial standard for determining if consent was vitiated by false promise. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. court order granting regular bail to the petitioner. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 447/2024 under Section 376 IPC registered at Police Station Nabi Karim (North), Delhi.
2. The gravamen of the allegations against the present petitioner is that he had established physical relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of false marriage.
3. Mr. Surya Narayan Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the reading of the FIR it is borne out that the petitioner as well as prosecutrix met through their respective families for the purpose of their marriage and thereafter the petitioner and prosecutrix were in regular touch. He submits that the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix were consensual in nature. He further contends that the petitioner even got married to the prosecutrix on 21.01.2024 in the presence of witnesses.
4. To support his contention, Mr. Surya Narayan Singh has invited attention of the Court to the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur (Bihar) which has been annexed as Annexure A-2 to the present petition. He submits that even the status report filed by the State shows that the documents of marriage were verified and as per the verification report the petitioner and prosecutrix got married on 21.01.2024 with their own consent in the presence of the witnesses.
5. He further submits that the circumstances of the present case shows that it is not a case of false promise to marry, rather the petitioner did marry the prosecutrix. Even the prosecutrix has admitted the factum of marriage in her statement made before the CAW Cell, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, which has been annexed as Annexure-A3 to the petition.
6. He further contends that the FIR itself shows that the petitioner and prosecutrix had met on multiple occasions and travelled to various places and stayed in hotels. He submits that if the petitioner was forcibly establishing the physical relations with the prosecutrix or was repeatedly doing so on the false pretext of marriage, there was no occasion for the prosecutrix to meet the petitioner on various occasions.
7. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2024 and that the question as to whether it is a case of false promise to marry, does not require custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
8. He submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents nor he is a flight risk.
9. Per contra, learned APP assisted by Mr. Shiv Chopra, learned counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix has argued on the lines of the status report. He submits that the FIR contains allegations that the petitioner established sexual relations with the prosecutrix during their visits to various places by making false promise to marry. Mr. Shiv Chopra additionally submits that some of the incidents alleged in the FIR are subsequent to the coming into force of the BNS, 2023 on 01.07.2024, therefore, even if the relationship was consensual, still it was made by making false promise to marry, therefore, the offence under Section 69 BNS, 2023, (1. 69. Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.—Whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— “deceitful means” shall include inducement for,
