The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage, observing that physical intimacy occurring during a long-term functioning relationship cannot be “retrospectively branded” as rape simply because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage. Justice Prateek Jalan, while adjudicating the application, noted that the prosecutrix had made a prior complaint to the police regarding a dowry demand and marriage refusal without mentioning any allegations of sexual assault.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vineet Sorout, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 401/2025 registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, the petitioner and the prosecutrix met in 2021 via Instagram and developed a friendship. The prosecutrix alleged that in June 2021, the petitioner met her family and expressed a desire to marry her. She claimed that on May 21, 2023, the petitioner established physical relations with her on a false promise of marriage. Further allegations included incidents at hotels where the petitioner allegedly recorded explicit videos without her knowledge.
An engagement ceremony (“Roka”) was held on May 1, 2024, with the marriage scheduled for November 18, 2025. However, the prosecutrix alleged that after March 2025, the petitioner stopped communicating, demanded ₹10,00,000 as dowry, and fixed his marriage elsewhere. She further alleged that the petitioner threatened to leak her explicit photos when confronted.
Arguments by the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Abhay Kumar, argued that the parties were in a consensual relationship for five years. He highlighted that an engagement was actually performed, proving there was no “false promise” at the inception. He specifically pointed to a communication dated July 22, 2025, sent by the prosecutrix to the SHO, where she complained about a dowry demand and marriage refusal but made no mention of rape.
Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the prosecutrix contended that physical relations were established only because of the promise of marriage. They argued that the petitioner used fake IDs at hotels and that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS (formerly 164 CrPC) corroborated the rape allegations.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024).
Quoting the Supreme Court in Samadhan, Justice Jalan noted:
“In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.”
The Court observed that the offence of rape must be invoked only in cases of genuine sexual violence or absence of free consent. It warned against the “disquieting tendency” of giving “failed or broken relationships the colour of criminality,” noting that such actions trivialize the seriousness of the offence.
Crucially, the Court examined the prosecutrix’s letter to the police dated July 22, 2025, which stated:
“I love Vineet… My relationship has been fixed with him. I have known him for 6 years, but now he is refusing to marry me. And now he is demanding dowry from me.”
The Court found it significant that this letter, written after the last alleged incident of sexual intercourse in March 2025, contained no allegation of rape. The subsequent Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) on September 6, 2025, also mentioned physical assault but remained silent on sexual assault. The rape allegation appeared for the first time in a complaint dated September 15, 2025.
Justice Jalan remarked:
“The very first statement in the communication dated 22.07.2025… is that the prosecutrix was in love with the petitioner. This aligns with the possibility that a physical relationship may be made without a promise of marriage… The fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix performed pre-marriage rituals… renders prima facie plausibility to the petitioner’s case.”
The Decision
The Court allowed the bail application, directing that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety. The relief is subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, providing an operational mobile number, and not influencing the prosecutrix or witnesses.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vineet Sorout v. State NCT of Delhi
- Case No: BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025
- Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan
- Date: March 03, 2026
