Delhi Court grants bail in Gen-Z rape case over false promise of marriage, observing “not in a situationship, both were consenting adults” in Sikh-Muslim relationship dispute.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Friday granted bail to a man accused in a case of alleged sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage, holding that the prolonged relationship between the parties demonstrated consent and lack of deceit.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, who observed that the intimate relationship of over three and a half years between the complainant and the accused indicated mutual involvement rather than coercion.
Interestingly, while analyzing the nature of the relationship, the court made references to Gen-Z slang, noting that the case involved a relationship, not a mere “situationship.” A situationship, as explained by the judge, is a casual association where the individuals involved do not consider themselves a romantic couple but may engage in sexual activity.
“It is nobody’s case that the complainant and the accused were in a situationship. Both of them are Gen-Z consenting adults, who engaged in an active sexual relationship during the course of their relationship (dating phase) lasting over three and a half years,”
the court remarked.
Background of the Case
The case was registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside Section 376 (rape).
- The complainant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the accused, a Sikh man, developed intimacy with her under the promise of marriage.
- She claimed he introduced her to his family, took her on multiple trips, and engaged in non-consensual acts, including recording intimate videos.
- The complainant also alleged that she later felt like she was being treated as a “sex slave.”
Before lodging the FIR, the complainant claimed she caught the accused “chatting with strange girls and liking their pictures.”
The accused, however, through his counsel, argued that the complainant was a progressive, educated woman who consented to the relationship, and the case was filed only after the relationship ended.
ALSO READ: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Man After 39 Years in Rs 100 Bribery Case
Arguments
Prosecution’s stand:
Opposed bail citing risks of evidence tampering. They emphasized that the mobile phones of both parties had been seized for forensic analysis.
Defence’s stand:
Argued that the relationship was consensual and long-term, and the allegations were an afterthought post-breakup.
Court’s Observations
The court highlighted several key points while granting bail:
- Nature of Relationship: The relationship lasted over 3.5 years, during which the complainant continued to travel, reside, and engage in intimate relationships with the accused, even after marriage disputes arose. This suggested ongoing consent.
- Religious Obstacle: The issue of interfaith marriage (Islam and Sikhism) was a known hurdle for both parties during the relationship.
- No Criminal Antecedents: The accused had no prior criminal record.
- Supreme Court & High Court Precedents: Reliance was placed on judgments clarifying that long-term consensual relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalized, unless it can be proved that the promise of marriage was false right from the beginning.
Court’s Decision:
Taking into account the facts, circumstances, and legal precedents, the court granted bail to the accused.
He was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the magistrate.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Asks Centre, States to Restore Full Pension for Retired Judicial Officers
Case Title:
State vs Guneet Singh
Bail Matter No.: 1849/2025
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Promise of Marriage
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Rape
