The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail application of an accused charged with rape, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation, observing that he prima facie induced the complainant into a physical relationship and marriage by concealing his subsisting marriage and a child from that wedlock.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected the plea of the applicant, noting that the consent of the complainant appeared to be vitiated by deception.
Case Background
The application for regular bail arose from FIR No. 33/2025, registered at Police Station Crime Women Cell, Nanak Pura, Delhi, under Sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 377 (unnatural offences), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
The complainant, ‘B’, alleged that she met the accused in April 2022 while working at an Aadhaar Centre. She claimed that the accused developed intimacy with her on the false assurance of marriage and established physical relations against her will. The parties subsequently got married on July 6, 2023, at Vedic Arya Mandal Trust, Ghaziabad, and the marriage was registered. They cohabited in a rented accommodation in Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
The complainant alleged that on February 7, 2025, she discovered photographs on the accused’s mobile phone revealing that he was already married to one ‘M’ and had a child. She further accused him of taking away her jewellery and scooty without consent and threatening to circulate private videos if she approached the authorities.
Arguments
The Petitioner’s Stand: Ms. Vijay Laxmi Chopra, counsel for the applicant, argued that the relationship was consensual from its inception. It was contended that the complainant, being an adult, had willingly accompanied the applicant to various places prior to their marriage in 2023. The counsel submitted that the complainant was “fully aware, even in 2022, of the applicant’s previous marriage” yet chose to marry him voluntarily. It was also stated that the allegedly borrowed money and scooty had been returned.
The Prosecution’s Stand: Representing the State, Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, argued that the applicant deliberately misrepresented material facts. The prosecution contended that the accused induced the complainant into the relationship on the false belief that he was unmarried. The State submitted that the complainant’s consent was “vitiated by the accused’s deception,” as she was led to believe she was his legally wedded wife.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the material on record, including the marriage certificate, statements recorded under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
Justice Sharma observed that there was no prima facie material to suggest the complainant was aware of the applicant’s first marriage. The Court noted:
“Had there been even prima facie material to suggest that the complainant was aware of his first marriage, the case could have been viewed as one arising out of a consensual long-term relationship between two adults. However, the record before this Court does not indicate any such knowledge on the part of the complainant.”
The Bench rejected the argument that the relationship should be viewed leniently even if bigamy is presumed. The Court highlighted that the applicant himself did not dispute his prior marriage or the fact that he had established physical relations with the complainant and subsequently married her.
Regarding the deception employed by the accused, the Court observed:
“These facts prima facie show that the applicant not only concealed his first marriage from the complainant but also may have furnished a false affidavit at Arya Samaj Mandir and/or at marriage registration office, declaring himself unmarried…”
The Court also took note of the FSL report regarding the applicant’s mobile phone, which contained “inappropriate photographs and videos of the complainant.” The Court held that this corroborated the allegation that the applicant had threatened to circulate these images.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the bail application (Bail Appln. 4049/2025), stating that given the nature of the allegations and the material collected during the investigation, there was no ground to grant relief at this stage.
The Court clarified:
“It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”
