$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026 ROHIT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: 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 CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

CRL.M.A. 9604/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026

3. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 586/2025, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’).

4. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on 29.10.2025 on the complaint of the prosecutrix. As per the allegations, in the year 2023, the prosecutrix was working at a restaurant in Rohini and during that period she came in contact with the present accused/applicant, who resides in Ashok Vihar and used to visit the same gym. It is alleged that during the course of their friendship, the applicant proposed marriage to the prosecutrix and, on the promise of marrying her, established physical relations with her at her residence. It is further alleged that the applicant continued to maintain physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that on 20.09.2025, the prosecutrix came to know that she was pregnant as a result of the said relationship and when she informed the applicant about the same, he advised her to abort the child. Thereafter, the pregnancy was terminated with the aid of certain medicines. It is also alleged that the last sexual relationship between them took place on 24.10.2025 on the false pretext of marriage. On 25.10.2025, the prosecutrix again discovered that she was pregnant and when she insisted that the applicant marry her, he refused to do so and informed her that he was already married.

5. After registration of the FIR on 29.10.2025, the prosecutrix was medically examined at Dr. BSA Hospital, which confirmed that she was pregnant. On 30.10.2025, she underwent medical termination of pregnancy at Dr. BSA Hospital. On 02.11.2025, the products of conception were handed over to the police, which have been sent to FSL for examination. It is also stated that the applicant, despite service of notice under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023, has failed to join the investigation. His application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected on 19.11.2025; however, he still failed to join the investigation.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature. It is contended that there was never any false promise of marriage and that the prosecutrix had entered into the physical relationship with the applicant with her free consent, she being a major at the relevant time. It is further argued that the prosecutrix was aware of the applicant’s relationship with one Zeenat Parveen and that he had children from the said relationship, and therefore there was no element of deception involved. It is also argued that the applicant is not legally married to Zeenat Parveen, as alleged by the prosecutrix, and that he is only in a live-in relationship with her, from which two children have been born. The learned counsel further submits that since the accused is not married to Zeenat Parveen, the promise of marriage allegedly made to the prosecutrix cannot be termed as a false promise of marriage.

7. On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the prosecutrix, as well as the prosecutrix who is present in person, o