The Delhi High Court rejected anticipatory bail in a false promise of marriage case citing concealed relationship facts. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held consent vitiated due to “misconception of facts” and dishonest intention from inception.
NEW DELHI: The High Court of Delhi dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a matter alleging sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage, finding that concealing a pre-existing marital-like relationship and children indicated a “dishonest intention from the inception.”
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that hiding such material facts creates a “misconception of facts” which vitiates consent for physical relations.
Legal question : Whether the applicant qualified for pre-arrest bail under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which penalizes engaging in sexual intercourse by deceit or promising marriage without any intention to keep that promise.
The Court concluded that the applicant’s alleged behavior concealing an existing family and attempting to mislead the judicial process about the prosecutrix’s situation barred the exercise of discretionary relief.
Facts of the case:
FIR No. 586/2025 was filed at Vijay Vihar Police Station on October 29, 2025, after a complaint by the prosecutrix. She stated that she met the applicant at a gym in 2023, where he proposed marriage and later had physical relations with her at her residence. She discovered a pregnancy in September 2025 and again in October 2025.
The prosecutrix alleged the applicant urged her to terminate the first pregnancy and, when she became pregnant again, refused to marry her, revealing that he was already married. Medical records showed she underwent a medical termination of pregnancy at Dr. BSA Hospital during the investigation.
Contentions:
Applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The relationship was consensual and entered into by an adult with free consent.
- The applicant was not “legally married” to Zeenat Parveen but only in a live-in relationship, so the promise of marriage was not false.
- The prosecutrix knew about the applicant’s children and prior relationship.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State countered that:
- The applicant kept the prosecutrix “in the dark” about his two children and domestic arrangement with Zeenat Parveen.
- The applicant misled the Sessions Court during interim proceedings by falsely claiming the prosecutrix was already married.
- The applicant did not cooperate with the investigation despite notices under Section 84 of the BNS, 2023.
Court’s review and observations:
The Court examined evidence such as birth certificates listing the applicant as father and photographs of family events. The investigation suggested the applicant and Zeenat Parveen had held a marriage ceremony and lived together with their children.
Addressing the applicant’s WhatsApp-based defense, Justice Sharma stated:
“Though the name of Zeenat is mentioned in some of the chats… it is nowhere reflected from the said conversations that the prosecutrix was aware that the accused was married to Zeenat Parveen or that he had two children from her, or that they were residing together.”
The Court also dismissed the contention that the absence of a formal “legal marriage” justified the misleading promise.
It said,
“The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the applicant herein had dishonest intention from the inception of his relationship with the prosecutrix with regard to the promise of marriage. The prosecutrix appears to have entered into the relationship with the applicant under a misconception of facts and on account of the promise of marriage extended by him.”
Judgment:
Justice Sharma held that the applicant’s efforts to mislead the Court and his failure to join the investigation weighed against granting bail.
The Court concluded in rejecting the application,
“The conduct of the applicant in attempting to mislead the Court, coupled with his failure to join the investigation, does not persuade this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail,”
Case Title: Rohit v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr. BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE