The Delhi High Court has held that concealing an existing marital relationship and children while inducing sexual relations through a false promise of marriage constitutes a serious breach of trust under the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023, and warrants denial of anticipatory bail. The judgment underscores the importance of honesty in intimate relationships and the court’s reluctance to grant pre-arrest relief where deception is prima facie established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rohit, seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 586/2025, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalizes sexual intercourse by a man on the false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix, a major woman employed at a restaurant in Rohini, alleges that between 2023 and October 2025, the petitioner falsely promised marriage to establish and continue a sexual relationship with her, while deliberately concealing his existing domestic relationship with Zeenat Parveen and their two children.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix and the petitioner met in 2023 while she was working at a restaurant in Rohini and he frequented the same gym
- The petitioner proposed marriage and began a physical relationship with her at her residence
- The relationship continued on the repeated assurance of marriage
- On 20.09.2025, the prosecutrix discovered she was pregnant and informed the petitioner, who advised her to terminate the pregnancy
- The pregnancy was terminated using medicines on 30.10.2025 at Dr. BSA Hospital
- On 24.10.2025, the last sexual encounter occurred under the same false promise of marriage
- On 25.10.2025, the prosecutrix discovered she was pregnant again and demanded marriage; the petitioner refused and disclosed he was already married
- FIR was registered on 29.10.2025
- Medical examination on 29.10.2025 confirmed pregnancy; products of conception were handed over to police on 02.11.2025 and sent to FSL
- The petitioner failed to join the investigation despite service of notice under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- The petitioner’s initial anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 19.11.2025
- The petitioner falsely claimed before the Sessions Court that the prosecutrix was married; the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was directed to verify this
- I.O.’s inquiry revealed:
- The petitioner and Zeenat Parveen had a marriage ceremony at his residence
- Zeenat Parveen had repeatedly asked him to register the marriage, which he avoided
- Zeenat Parveen resided with him for years and bore two children
- Birth certificates of the two children list the petitioner as father
- Photographs show family members blessing Zeenat Parveen at ceremonies for the children’s births
- WhatsApp chats referenced by the petitioner mention Zeenat’s name but do not indicate the prosecutrix was aware of the marriage, cohabitation, or existence of children
Procedural History
- 2023: Start of physical relationship between petitioner and prosecutrix
- 20.09.2025: Prosecutrix discovers first pregnancy; petitioner advises abortion
- 24.10.2025: Last sexual encounter under false promise of marriage
- 25.10.2025: Prosecutrix discovers second pregnancy; petitioner refuses marriage and discloses marital status
- 29.10.2025: FIR No. 586/2025 registered at PS Vijay Vihar
- 30.10.2025: Medical termination of pregnancy at Dr. BSA Hospital
- 02.11.2025: Products of conception handed over to police
- 12.11.2025: Sessions Court grants interim protection to petitioner; directs I.O. to verify prosecutrix’s marital status
- 19.11.2025: Sessions Court rejects anticipatory bail application
- 02.11.2025 to 10.01.2026: Investigation continues; I.O. submits report with birth certificates, photographs, and witness statements
- 07.04.2026: Delhi High Court hears bail application and rejects it
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC to prevent arrest in connection with FIR No. 586/2025 under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner’s conduct - inducing sexual relations through a false promise of marriage while deliberately concealing an existing marital relationship and children - constitutes a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, sufficient to deny anticipatory bail despite the absence of prior criminal record.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix was aware of his relationship with Zeenat Parveen, as evidenced by WhatsApp chats. It was contended that since the petitioner was not legally married to Zeenat Parveen, any promise of marriage to the prosecutrix could not be termed false. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and was a cooperative individual who had previously appeared before the Sessions Court.
For the Respondent
The State, supported by the prosecutrix and her counsel, contended that the petitioner concealed material facts - his cohabitation with Zeenat Parveen, the birth of two children, and the existence of a marriage ceremony - thereby inducing the prosecutrix into a sexual relationship under a false pretence. The State highlighted the petitioner’s failure to join the investigation and his attempt to mislead the Sessions Court by falsely alleging the prosecutrix was married. The conduct, it was argued, demonstrated dishonest intent and a pattern of exploitation, warranting denial of anticipatory bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence, including the I.O.’s report, birth certificates, photographs of family ceremonies, and WhatsApp chats. It emphasized that Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 criminalizes sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage, and the key element is the dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.
"The facts noted in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the photographs placed on record... prima facie indicate that the applicant herein had dishonest intention from the inception of his relationship with the prosecutrix with regard to the promise of marriage."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a live-in relationship without legal marriage negates the falsity of the promise. It held that the existence of a domestic union recognized by family members, evidenced by cohabitation, birth of children, and ceremonial acceptance, constitutes a de facto marital relationship. The concealment of this reality from the prosecutrix was deemed material deception.
The Court further noted that the WhatsApp chats, even if mentioning Zeenat’s name, contained no indication that the prosecutrix was aware of the petitioner’s children, cohabitation, or the marriage ceremony. The prosecutrix’s consent, therefore, was vitiated by fraud.
The Court also considered the petitioner’s conduct post-FIR: his failure to join the investigation despite notice and his attempt to mislead the Sessions Court by falsely alleging the prosecutrix was married. This conduct, the Court held, demonstrated a lack of bona fides and undermined any claim to the equitable relief of anticipatory bail.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The Court finds a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 based on the deliberate concealment of a de facto marital relationship and children, coupled with dishonest intent in inducing sexual relations under a false promise of marriage. The petitioner is directed to cooperate fully with the investigation. No interim protection is extended. The order is to be uploaded on the court’s website forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Promise of Marriage Includes De Facto Marital Status
- Practitioners must now argue that even unregistered but socially and domestically recognized relationships constitute a "marital relationship" for the purposes of Section 69 BNS
- Concealment of children, cohabitation, or family acceptance of a relationship can be decisive evidence of dishonest intent
- The absence of a legal marriage certificate does not negate the existence of a de facto marital bond
Conduct Post-FIR Is Critical in Bail Decisions
- Failure to join investigation despite notice under Section 84 BNSS will weigh heavily against the accused
- Attempts to mislead the court during interim proceedings will be viewed as evidence of mala fide
- Anticipatory bail is not a right but a discretionary remedy; conduct reflecting lack of cooperation or deception disqualifies the applicant
Consent Based on Deception Is Not Valid Consent
- Consent obtained through concealment of material facts (marital status, children, cohabitation) is legally invalid under Section 69 BNS
- The burden shifts to the accused to prove the victim was aware of the truth; mere mention of a name in chats is insufficient
- Courts will examine the totality of evidence - including photographs, birth certificates, and family conduct - to determine deception
