The court distinguished between a genuine breach of promise to marry and sexual relations induced by deceitful assurances. Under Section 69 of the BNS, repeated false representations to secure consent for physical relations constitute a prima facie case of deceit, justifying the denial of bail.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 01/2026, registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’) and Section 69 of the of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

(hereafter ‘BNS’).

Factual Background

2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the status report, are that on 03.01.2026, a complaint was received at P.S. Keshav Puram from the prosecutrix Ms. S, aged 27 years, alleging sexual exploitation and deceit on the pretext of a false promise of marriage by the applicant herein. It was alleged that the prosecutrix had known the applicant and his family since the year 2018. It was further alleged that the applicant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions on the assurance of marriage. According to the prosecutrix, the applicant had subsequently refused to marry her on the ground that their birth-charts (kundalis) did not match, claiming that he and his family held strong beliefs in astrology. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant had first established physical relations with her in July 2019 in his car, and thereafter at his residence in Tri Nagar, Delhi, at The Golden Keys Hotel, Ashok Vihar, and at other places. It was further alleged that the last incident had taken place on 12.09.2025 near Nitin Girdhar Salon, Nigam Park, Gali Chakkar, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. It was stated that the prosecutrix had earlier submitted a written complaint, which she had subsequently withdrawn after she was allegedly assured by the applicant and his family that they would solemnize the marriage. However, upon the alleged failure of the said assurance, the prosecutrix submitted a fresh written complaint, pursuant to which the present FIR for offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 69

of BNS was registered and investigation was taken up.

3. During the course of investigation, the medical examination of the prosecutrix Ms. S was conducted at Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital vide MLC No. 145/26 dated 03.01.2026. As per the MLC, the prosecutrix reiterated the substance of her complaint and stated that she had been in a relationship with the applicant since her college days. It was recorded that physical relations had been established on the assurance of marriage. The prosecutrix also alleged that the applicant had threatened to leak her photographs. No external injuries were found, and the prosecutrix declined internal examination. Further, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of the BNSS was also recorded before the learned JMFC on 06.01.2026. In her statement, she reiterated that she had known the applicant since college, that he had repeatedly promised to marry her, and that physical relations had been established on multiple occasions over several years on such assurance. She further stated that she had been introduced to the applicant’s family and relatives as his prospective wife, had participated in family functions, and that the applicant had publicly affirmed the relationship, including by giving her a ring. The prosecutrix further stated that despite repeated assurances, the applicant began distancing himself from May 2025 and ultimately refused to marry her in June 2025 on the ground of non-matching of kundalis. She alleged that thereafter the applicant again assured her of marriage and established physical relations with her on multiple occasions till September 2025. She also alleged that on certain

occasions she was subjected to pressure and threats of leakage of photographs. It was further stated that the prosecutrix had earlier lodged a complaint in November 2025, which she withdrew upon assurances of marriage by the applicant and his family. However, when no steps were taken towards solemnization of marriage, she lodged the present complaint, seeking legal act