The High Court of Delhi has dismissed an anticipatory bail plea in a case involving allegations of sexual relations established under a false promise of marriage, ruling that the concealment of a pre-existing marital-like relationship and children points toward a “dishonest intention from the inception.” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such suppression of material facts leads to a “misconception of facts” that invalidates the consent obtained for physical relations.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This section specifically penalizes sexual intercourse through deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention to fulfill it. The Court found that the applicant’s alleged conduct—hiding an existing family and attempting to mislead the judicial process regarding the prosecutrix’s status—precluded the exercise of discretionary relief.
Case Background
The FIR (No. 586/2025) was registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar on October 29, 2025, following a complaint by the prosecutrix. She alleged that she met the applicant at a gym in 2023, where he proposed marriage and subsequently established physical relations at her residence.
The prosecutrix claimed she discovered she was pregnant in September 2025 and again in October 2025. She alleged that the applicant advised her to terminate the first pregnancy and, when confronted with the second pregnancy, refused to marry her, revealing that he was already married. Medical records confirmed that she underwent medical termination of pregnancy at Dr. BSA Hospital during the course of the investigation.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant contended that:
- The relationship was consensual and entered into by a major with free consent.
- The applicant was not “legally married” to another woman, Zeenat Parveen, but was only in a live-in relationship, thus the promise of marriage was not “false.”
- The prosecutrix was aware of the applicant’s children and prior relationship.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), appearing for the State, argued that:
- The applicant had kept the prosecutrix “in the dark” regarding his two children and his domestic arrangement with Zeenat Parveen.
- The applicant had misled the Sessions Court during interim proceedings by falsely claiming the prosecutrix was already married.
- The applicant failed to join the investigation despite receiving notices under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023.
Court’s Analysis and Direct Quotes
The Court reviewed evidence including birth certificates naming the applicant as the father and photographs of family ceremonies. It noted that the investigation revealed the applicant and Zeenat Parveen had performed a marriage ceremony and lived together with their children.
Regarding the applicant’s defense via WhatsApp chats, Justice Sharma noted:
“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 rejected the argument that a lack of “legal marriage” excused the false promise, stating:
“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.”
The Decision
Justice Sharma emphasized that the applicant’s conduct, including his failure to join the investigation and his attempt to mislead the court, weighed heavily against the grant of bail.
“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,” the Court held while rejecting the application.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Rohit v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.
- Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026
- Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Date of Decision: April 07, 2026
