Nine fake profiles on a matrimonial website, with different names, ages and occupations, one of them even posing as a woman. That, the Delhi High Court noted, was the prima facie material against a man accused of raping a woman on a false promise of marriage. Finding it not a fit case for bail, with the profiles proved through the website’s own witness and the trial nearing its end, the Court declined his release.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declined to grant bail to a man accused of sexual and related offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including rape on a false promise of marriage, noting prima facie material that he had created and operated nine different profiles on a matrimonial website to target women [Gaurav Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi)].
Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the bail application in a case registered at PS Karol Bagh for offences under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3) of the BNS.
The allegations
According to the prosecution, the complainant met the accused through a matrimonial website, after which he agreed to marry her and, over a period, entered into a physical relationship with her on the assurance of marriage, while repeatedly deferring the wedding; it is further alleged that he later used objectionable photographs to coerce her. During the investigation, it emerged, and a witness from the matrimonial website deposed before the trial court, that the accused had created and operated nine different profiles on the website using different names, mobile numbers and email IDs, spanning different ranges of age, qualification and occupation, one of which was in the persona of a woman. The court noted that these profiles prima facie lent credence to the prosecution’s description of the accused as a predator who targeted women, though it emphasised that this was a prima facie view for the limited purpose of the bail plea.
The State also referred to an audio recording in which, it alleged, the accused admitted to having cheated a number of women in a similar manner and to having taken objectionable photographs of the complainant. The recording, handed by the complainant to the earlier Investigating Officer, was not made part of the chargesheet or sent for forensic analysis by that officer; after the court was apprised of this, the IO was changed, and the State has since moved the trial court seeking forensic analysis of the recording.
The rival submissions
Counsel for the accused submitted that there was no cogent material to show that it was the accused who had created the nine profiles, that the trial was at its fag end with only the Investigating Officer left to be examined, that it was being held up by the delay in the FSL report on the accused’s mobile phone, that the accused had a family to support and had been in custody since November 6, 2025, and that the complainant was a grown-up woman who could not be believed to have been induced into a relationship on a false matrimonial promise.
The State opposed bail, describing the accused, on the instructions of the new Investigating Officer, as a dangerous predator who had cheated a number of women by floating profiles across a wide range of ages, occupations and qualifications, and submitting that several victims were reluctant to come forward but that more complainants were likely once the FSL report came out. The State argued that, with the trial at its fag end, the accused would abscond if released, and that this was not a fit case for bail.
The Court’s view
Considering the material, including that the nine profiles had been proved through the matrimonial website’s witness to have been created by the accused using his own phone number and email IDs, and the circumstances surrounding the audio recording now sent for forensic analysis, the Court held that it was not a fit case to grant bail, and dismissed the application. It directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent, and clarified that nothing observed in the order should be read to the prejudice of either side, the trial court being free to take an independent view on the evidence at the stage of final arguments.
Why it matters
At the bail stage, a court does not decide guilt; it weighs the gravity of the accusation, the strength of the prima facie material, the stage of the trial and the risk of the accused fleeing or influencing the proceedings. Here, the feature that weighed against the accused was not merely the complainant’s account but the objective material said to corroborate a pattern, the nine fabricated matrimonial profiles, proved through the website’s own witness, spanning implausibly varied identities and even a female persona. Such material, if ultimately established, speaks to a designed course of conduct rather than a single failed relationship, and it is that prima facie pattern, together with the advanced stage of the trial, that led the Court to refuse bail.
The order also throws light on the consequences of deficient investigation. The alleged confessional audio recording, given to the police by the complainant, was neither placed in the chargesheet nor sent for forensic analysis by the original Investigating Officer, a lapse that led to the officer’s replacement and to a fresh application for forensic examination. Courts take a serious view of investigative omissions that may benefit an accused, and the correction of course here formed part of the backdrop against which bail was considered.
It bears emphasis that the allegations are untested and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence; the Court itself was careful to record that its observations are prima facie and will not prejudice either side at trial. The refusal of bail is not a finding of guilt, but a decision that, on the material as it stands and with the trial nearing completion, the accused should not be released. The identity of the complainant is protected by law and has not been disclosed.
Case Title: Gaurav Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [BAIL APPLN. 2388/2026]
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Decision: September 22, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Rakhi Dubey and Bipin Dubey for the applicant; ASC Amol Sinha for the State; Advocate Vineet Malhotra for the prosecutrix.
Status: Bail application dismissed. Observations prima facie and for the bail plea only; not to prejudice either side at trial. Allegations untested; presumption of innocence applies.
This report concerns a sensitive matter involving a survivor of alleged sexual violence, whose identity is protected by law and has not been disclosed. If you or someone you know needs support, the women’s helpline 181 and the police helpline 112 can direct you to assistance.