The High Court of Delhi has dismissed the regular bail application of a man accused of establishing physical relations on the false pretext of marriage under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court observed that the accused’s subsequent refusal to marry citing non-matching birth-charts (kundalis) appeared inconsistent with his repeated prior assurances to the victim that their horoscopes had already matched.
Background of the Case
The case stems from FIR No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram on a complaint by a 27-year-old woman. She alleged sexual exploitation and deceit by the applicant, Jayant Vats, whom she had known since 2018. According to the prosecutrix, physical relations were established on multiple occasions, starting in July 2019, on the assurance of marriage. She alleged that the applicant later refused to marry her, claiming that his family held strong beliefs in astrology and their kundalis did not match.
The prosecutrix had earlier submitted a written complaint in November 2025, which she subsequently withdrew after the applicant and his family allegedly assured her they would solemnize the marriage. Following a failure to fulfill this assurance, she lodged the present fresh complaint.
Arguments of the Parties
Senior Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, representing the applicant, argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated and was in judicial custody since January 4, 2026. He contended that the relationship was consensual, the parties had known each other for eight years, and the applicant genuinely intended to marry the complainant. He submitted that the marriage could not materialize solely due to non-matching kundalis, relying on judicial precedents to argue that a consensual relationship turning sour does not attract the offence of rape.
Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, and the counsel for the prosecutrix opposed the bail plea. They submitted that WhatsApp conversations revealed the applicant had repeatedly assured the complainant that their kundalis had matched and there was no hurdle to their marriage. They further argued that the applicant admitted in chats that the complainant was reluctant to engage in physical relations prior to marriage and only succumbed to his insistence and pressure.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the material on record, including WhatsApp chats and the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, prima facie indicated that the applicant repeatedly assured the prosecutrix of marriage. The Court observed that the applicant had sought birth details for kundali matching and had stated in a chat dated September 14, 2023, “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum,” which demonstrated that the kundali issue was already represented as resolved.
Addressing the defence’s reliance on the non-matching of horoscopes, the Court stated, “If the issue of kundali matching was indeed of such determinative importance for the applicant and his family, the same should have been resolved at the threshold before entering into physical relations.”
The Court drew a clear distinction between a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances and a false assurance given from the inception to secure consent.
The judge made the following key observation:
“The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant. Such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically deals with cases of sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.”
Decision
Emphasizing that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the chargesheet is yet to be filed, the Court held that it was not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. The bail application was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that the observations made were purely for deciding the bail plea and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
- Case Title: Jayant Vats versus State (NCT of Delhi)
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 422/2026
