$~64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026 & CRL.M.A.10519/2026 KAPIL THAKUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Singh and Mr. Durgesh Kumar Dubey, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/SI Neetu.

Mr. J.K. Singh and Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocates for prosecutrix with prosecutrix and mother of prosecutrix in person.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.94/2026 of Police Station Ranhola for offence under Section 69 BNS.

2. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Neetu. I have also heard the D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD25ops76D e .5 0f uo iN a 5 a r g 6 9 =s t i . , :4 a i e t 9 9 t H c c al . : a a 6n 2 N = lI 2 l f C b G 0 = I 3 u 0 yN 4 o = H G 9 m 2 0 s, d 86 6I i C o fR be g 42 . 8 = 0 O I =e 0 n c 0S4 H r 16 1U e Hc= . df 1 0 Id b R b G d K 0 d 7 d T b 4 3 H A 0 8 2 0 8 y O e0 8 Te 5 C 3 83 G F H 9 e : O 5 6 5 , b e I P Dd 7 R s 9 U2 6A tE4 9 I : R = 7 0 2 S L L3 6 H a 4 T 1 D I H5 4 A 7 0 O - e f 5 I K 7 2 0 9,lC 1 AF h b c 7 7 e I 4 T i ' 26D D 0 ,c 8 H f2 4 E 0 6 - 7 6 P 5 L ' 5 7 9 c AH c f 0 6 a 0 LI 4c 5 , 7 I A 7 f e b a6 4 85 ,3 a 0d f 8 1 e 1 , e c 52 4 5 prosecutrix as well as her mother and counsel.

3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The prosecutrix lodged complaint on which FIR was registered on 11.02.2026. In that complaint, the prosecutrix alleged that she knew the accused/applicant since the year 2023 and they fell in love with each other. Thereafter, in December 2024 at request of the accused/applicant and his mother, the prosecutrix started living in the home of the accused/applicant in order to take care of his ailing sister. The prosecutrix lived in the home of the accused/applicant from January 2025 to September 2025, during which period they established sexual relations. According to the prosecutrix, she consented for sexual relations only because the accused/applicant promised to get married with her. There were multiple occasions when they indulged in sexual intercourse. Further, the prosecutrix alleges that the accused/applicant took from her jewellery worth Rs.50,000/- and cash Rs.20,000/-, which he has not returned.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual relations, with no promise of marriage. It was a case of live-in relationship according to learned counsel for accused/applicant. Further, it is submitted that on account of gross misconduct of the prosecutrix in abusing mother of the accused/applicant in filthy language, he had no D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD26Cps0cD e n .9 9 oO iN a 5 r g = a 9 s t i . U :4 a i e f t 6G tc 3 aR l . : a b 2 N = I 9 l 2 T R l C 4 0I 6 u 0 y I N 0 oO = S 2 m 2 f s, d H 8cF 6 8 io be g 46 . 0 D K = 0 =e 0f n c b A4 E H r 1 1 e b= 4 . L T d 1 0 Id d G H8 d H 0 d 7 2 b 3 3 H I0 P 8 e , 0 5 y C e0 A 8 e 5 C d 8 I3 G 9 eL D : O 4 6 5 , b I6 I A 3 7 R s 9 U - 2 0 t 5 9 I : 7 R = 7 4 1 S f 6 0 H a 0 T 3 9 D4 4 7 2 7 O - e5 K 7 7 c 0 6 l1 AF 6 4 h b 7 2 e 3 8 T i ' 26 D 0 ,c 8 7 H fc 4 E 0 6 , 9 a P 5 L ' 5c 6 AH c f 50 LI a f , 7 I , A e 8b o4 05 ua 1d =f e e 1 H 2 c 5 I 6 4G 5f 5 7a H5 , reason to get married with her. In this regard, learned counsel for accused/applicant has referred to Annexure A-8 to the application. The said Annexure A-8 is transcript of audio recording of the conversation between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.

5. Learned counsel for prosecutrix opposes the bail application only on the ground that if released on bail, the accused/applicant will pressurize the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix submits that she started living in the home of t