Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja, while granting anticipatory bail to a 20-year-old accused in a rape case, clarified the distinction between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of such a promise. The Court observed that not every breach of a promise to marry amounts to a false promise and that each case must be assessed on its individual facts. Examining the material on record, including WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties, the Bench found that the relationship appeared consensual and based on mutual affection. It held that there was no evidence of deceitful intent from the beginning and directed that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested, subject to standard conditions.

The case concerns an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 CrPC before the Delhi High Court. The prosecution case originates from a complaint alleging that the applicant, a neighbour of the complainant, had engaged in sexual relations over a period of two years on the pretext of marriage. According to the complaint, the parties became acquainted in 2023 and subsequently entered into a relationship. The complainant stated that she was induced into physical intimacy on repeated assurances of marriage and that she stayed at the applicant’s residence for several days as his wife. It was alleged that the applicant later failed to solemnize the marriage and left her at the court premises, after which the police complaint was lodged.

Also Read: Insurer Liable to Pay Compensation Despite Route Deviation; Entitled to Recover From Owner: Supreme Court

The applicant contended that the relationship was voluntary and mutually affectionate, supported by digital evidence such as WhatsApp conversations and a recorded video, arguing that no false promise was ever made. He maintained that he had cooperated with the investigation and had no criminal antecedents. The prosecution opposed the plea, asserting that the allegations revealed deliberate deceit and that custodial interrogation might be required to ensure a fair investigation. The Court considered the rival submissions and examined the materials placed on record.

The Court stated that “the gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the complainant on the false promise of marriage.” It observed that the material on record suggested a consensual relationship, noting that “the WhatsApp chats annexed by the petitioner indicate the pattern of mutual affection and voluntary participation rather than coercion or deception.” The Court recorded that the messages showed the complainant threatening self-harm and pressing for marriage, indicating that the relationship had deteriorated and turned acrimonious.

The Court examined the legal distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, holding that not every breach amounts to deceit. Referring to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675, it quoted: “Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided... There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex... The court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust.”

It also cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, where it was held: “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a ‘misconception of fact’ that vitiates consent.” The Court further noted: “To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.”

Also Read: Banks Form Backbone Of Indian Economy; Courts Should Not Entertain Unfounded Allegations Of Financial Impropriety : Delhi High Court

The Court referred to Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 782), stating that “a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State.” It remarked that criminal law cannot serve as an instrument of coercion or revenge where a consensual relationship deteriorates. Considering the applicant’s age, clean record, and cooperation with the investigation, the Court found no need for custodial interrogation and affirmed that protection of personal liberty under Article 21 must remain paramount.

The Court directed that “in the event of petitioner’s arrest, he be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO/SHO concerned. Petitioner shall join investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall share his mobile number with the IO and shall not change the said number and shall keep the same operational throughout. Petitioner shall not try to contact the prosecutrix or any other witness connected with the present case and shall not tamper with the evidence. Any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of deciding the present bail application.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Mr. Ishwar Singh Deepak, Mr. Jeet Chakralarti, Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP; Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v State NCT of Delhi
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 3767/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja