Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a petitioner accused of establishing physical relations with the prosecutrix under a false promise of marriage. The court, after examining the facts and legal arguments, held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the petitioner never intended to marry the prosecutrix from the outset.

The case pertains to an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the petitioner engaged in sexual relations with her under the false promise of marriage. She contended that the petitioner had deceived her into believing that he was committed to marrying her but later reneged on this promise.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and prosecutrix were introduced through their families for the purpose of marriage. It was alleged that the petitioner, after developing an intimate relationship with the prosecutrix, delayed the marriage on various pretexts. The complainant stated that despite their continued relationship, the petitioner ultimately refused to marry her. The FIR detailed multiple instances where the prosecutrix claimed that the petitioner reassured her of marriage, only to later withdraw from his commitment.

The petitioner’s counsel countered these allegations by presenting a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur (Bihar), dated January 21, 2024. This certificate, which was duly verified by the investigating authorities, confirmed that the petitioner and prosecutrix were legally married. Further, the prosecutrix herself acknowledged the existence of the marriage in her statement before the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was lodged due to extraneous reasons.

The prosecution further argued that some of the alleged incidents mentioned in the FIR took place after July 1, 2024, when the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, came into force. It was contended that the petitioner’s actions amounted to an offence under Section 69 BNS, 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage. However, the defense maintained that the petitioner’s marriage with the prosecutrix predated the law’s enforcement and, therefore, did not fall under its purview.

The court examined whether the petitioner’s promise to marry was made in good faith or whether it was a deceptive assurance intended solely to establish physical relations with the prosecutrix. The court referred to established precedents, including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, to state the legal distinction between a false promise and a breach of a genuine commitment. The court observed:

“To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time it was given.”

The court further held: “A breach of a promise cannot automatically be deemed to be a false promise. The prosecution must establish that the accused never intended to fulfil the promise of marriage from the very outset.”

The court examined the statements of the prosecutrix and the documentary evidence presented, including the marriage certificate. It found that the petitioner had indeed entered into a legally recognized marriage with the prosecutrix on January 21, 2024. Furthermore, it noted that the prosecutrix herself acknowledged this marriage in her statement before the CAW Cell.

Addressing the prosecution’s argument under Section 69 BNS, 2023, the court noted:

“The offence under Section 69 BNS, 2023, requires that the promise to marry be false from the inception. Given that the petitioner and prosecutrix solemnized their marriage prior to the enactment of BNS, it remains doubtful whether the said provision applies in the present case.”

Additionally, the court took into consideration the petitioner’s personal background. It observed that the petitioner was a working professional employed at Punjab National Bank and had no prior criminal record. The court found that there was no material evidence to suggest that the petitioner posed a flight risk or that his continued custody was necessary for the investigation.

Based on the available evidence and legal precedents, the High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

• He shall appear before the court as and when required.

• He shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer and ensure it remains operational.

• He shall not engage in any criminal activity or attempt to contact the prosecutrix or witnesses.

The court stated that the observations made in the bail order were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: Bail Appln. 8/2025
Bench: Justice Vikas Mahajan

[Read/Download order]