Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in 'False Promise to Marry' Case, Citing Prolonged Live-in Relationship

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on anticipatory bail, the Delhi High Court has held that a prolonged, consensual live-in relationship, particularly where the complainant was already married when it began, makes the allegation of rape on a "false promise to marry" a matter for trial. Justice Amit Sharma granted pre-arrest bail to a man accused of rape, forcible abortion, and dowry harassment, emphasizing that the nature of the relationship and the complainant's circumstances required deeper examination during trial.

---

Background of the Case

The applicant, Satender, a government employee, sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered under Sections 498A (dowry harassment), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 376 (rape), and 313 (causing miscarriage without woman's consent) of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant alleged that Satender, her former husband's cousin, wooed her while she was still married. She claimed he convinced her to seek a divorce from her husband on the promise that he would marry her and adopt her son. Following a "Panchayati divorce" in December 2016, she alleged Satender established physical relations with her against her consent, but she did not file a complaint after he assured her of marriage.

According to the FIR, the two entered into a temple marriage in October 2017 and lived together as husband and wife until February 2022. During this period, the complainant alleged Satender forced her to have multiple abortions and eventually abandoned her to marry another woman. The charges of rape and forcible abortion were added to the FIR after its initial registration.

Arguments at the Bar

Applicant's Defence: Counsel for Satender argued that the FIR was a "false and concocted story." They highlighted that the complainant was legally married to her first husband until a formal divorce decree was passed in November 2022, well after the FIR was registered. This, they contended, meant a valid marriage with the applicant was not possible, undermining the Section 498A charge. The addition of rape and forcible abortion charges was termed an "afterthought" to harass the applicant.

Prosecution's Stance: The State, supported by the complainant's senior counsel, strongly opposed the bail plea. They presented evidence gathered during the investigation, including:

Witness statements confirming the applicant and complainant lived as husband and wife.

Official records where the applicant had listed the complainant as his wife in his CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) card and for government accommodation.

Hospital records and online payment details linking the applicant to one of the alleged abortions.

Audio recordings where the applicant, allegedly drunk, did not deny the conversations.

The prosecution argued that the applicant's actions—deceitfully entering a relationship, causing abortions, and then marrying another woman—constituted serious offenses, and his custodial interrogation was necessary to recover a mobile phone containing crucial evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Legal Precedent

Justice Amit Sharma meticulously analyzed the facts, noting that the complainant herself stated she lived with the applicant as husband and wife from October 2017. The court observed that she, being a married woman with a child, continued the relationship for years without a formal divorce from her first husband.

The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jaspal Singh Kaural vs. State of NCT of Delhi , which differentiates between a "false promise to marry" and a "breach of promise." The Supreme Court held that an offense of rape is made out only if the promise was false from the very beginning, intended solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.

In his judgment, Justice Sharma noted:

"The complainant who was already married and having a child from the previous marriage continued to stay with the applicant without any formal decree of divorce... Whether the same in the aforesaid circumstances would amount to false promise to marriage or that she gave her consent for sexual relations under misconception of fact is a matter of trial to be determined by the learned Trial Court at an appropriate stage."

The court found that the "live-in relationship... which admittedly commenced in October 2017 till the filing of the present complaint cannot be ignored." Similarly, the allegations of forcible abortion were deemed disputed questions of fact that required evidence and examination during trial, especially since the complainant continued to live with the applicant after the first alleged incident.

Final Decision

Concluding that the applicant, a public servant with roots in society, had joined the investigation and was not a flight risk, the court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. Satender was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and comply with standard bail conditions, including not leaving the country without permission and cooperating with the investigation.

The court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the case during trial.