Consent to engage in a sexual relationship is not vitiated by a promise of marriage unless the promise is proven to be made in bad faith or with no intention to adhere to it from inception.

JUDGMENT

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present petition filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 („ BNSS ‟), the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.0525/2024 dated 26.10.2024 registered under sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („ IPC ‟) at P.S.: Malviya Nagar, South Delhi. Consequent upon completion of investigation, allegations of offences under sections 384/354A/34 have been added vide chargesheet filed on 24.12.2024.

2. Notice on this petition was issued vide order dated 23.12.2025.

3. Status Report dated 02.01.2026 has been filed on behalf of the State.

4. This court has heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (accused); Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State (respondent No.1); and Mr. Manoj Loomba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/prosecutrix (respondent No.2), at length.

5. Nominal Roll dated 01.01.2026 requisitioned from the Jail Superintendent shows that the petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2024; and has been in custody for 01 year 02 months and 05 days as of 31.12.2025.

6. Investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet stands filed on 24.12.2024 before the learned trial court.

7. A relevant development in the matter is that vidé order dated 31.10.2025 made in SLP (Crl.) No.17229/2025 filed by co-accused Sudhanshu Kumar Upadhyay, the Supreme Court has stayed further proceedings in the subject FIR. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Supreme Court reads as follows:

“In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR (No.525/2024 dated 26.10.2024 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District South, Delhi) shall remain stayed.”

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. Based on what has come-forth in the course of investigation, Mr. Mir has drawn attention to the following allegations that emerge from the record:

8.1. That it is the admitted position, as recorded inter-alia in statement dated 28.10.2024 of the prosecutrix recorded under section 183 of the BNSS , that on the date of the alleged offences the prosecutrix was about 40 years of age; who was undergoing divorce from her husband, which culminated in an ex-parte Divorce Decree dated 27.06.2023. On the other hand, it is submitted that the petitioner is a 31-year old gym-trainer, who was employed at a gym in South Delhi at the relevant time.

8.2. That the prosecutrix came into contact with the petitioner since she used to frequent the gym and the accused was a trainer at that gym; and as per her own case as recorded in the subject FIR, she found the petitioner to be a very competent gym- trainer and in December 2022 she asked for the petitioner to be appointed her personal trainer. It is further the admitted case that thereafter, the prosecutrix became close to the petitioner.

8.3. That, according to the prosecutrix‟s allegation in the subject FIR, the petitioner proposed marriage to her, which she „happily accepted‟. It is the prosecutrix‟s allegation, that thereafter, the petitioner started visiting her home; and, on the petitioner‟s request, she also gave him money since he represented that now that they were about to become husband and wife, their assets were joint.

8.4. That furthermore, the allegation is that on one of the occasions when the petitioner visited the prosecutrix‟s house, he brought her liquor, and when she was inebriated, he made physical relations with her. The prosecutrix also alleges that when she protested the physical relations, the petitioner reassured her that since they were about to get married, she had nothing to worry about. As