The Bombay High Court has granted regular bail to a 34-year-old cameraman accused of sexual assault on the false promise of marriage. Justice Amit Borkar, while allowing the bail application, observed that the question of whether a complainant’s consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage is a matter for trial, especially given that the parties, both mature adults, were in a consensual live-in relationship for a considerable period.
The application was filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered at Kalwa Police Station for offences under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means), 115(2) (abetment), 305 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), and 3(5) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a 36-year-old woman, came into contact with the applicant in 2023. Their acquaintance developed into a romantic relationship, during which the applicant allegedly represented himself as a divorcee and expressed his intention to marry her.
The First Information Report (FIR) alleges that on June 6, 2023, the applicant took the complainant to his residence where they discussed marriage. Subsequently, he is alleged to have established physical relations with her against her will on multiple occasions under the assurance of marriage. The complainant later discovered obscene chats and photographs of other women on the applicant’s phone. When confronted, the applicant allegedly harassed her.
The prosecution stated that the applicant later admitted to being married to another woman, with whom matrimonial disputes were pending. The applicant’s mother is also alleged to have given false assurances that the divorce would be finalized soon.
The complaint further details allegations of financial exploitation. It is claimed that the applicant, a cameraman for a television serial, frequently demanded money, a gold ring for his birthday, and compelled the complainant to pay installments for a four-wheeler. The complainant also alleged that she was forced to spend Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 80,000 on renovating his house and gave him Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000 for personal expenses, in addition to Rs. 50,000 for a festival. Whenever she raised the issue of marriage, the applicant allegedly assaulted her.
From August 2024, the parties resided together in a rented room in Kalwa. The relationship ended in February 2025 after the complainant realized the applicant had no intention of marrying her and was exploiting her. The FIR was lodged against both the applicant and his mother.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the complainant and applicant were in a live-in relationship from 2023 to February 2025. He submitted that the complainant is a 36-year-old woman and the relationship was consensual. He contended that the allegation of consent being obtained on a false promise of marriage is a matter to be decided during the trial and pointed out that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Opposing the application, the learned APP for the State argued that the allegations were grave. She contended that “consent obtained on a false promise of marriage cannot be treated as consent in law,” and therefore, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were fulfilled, disentitling the applicant to the discretionary relief of bail.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After considering the submissions, the Court noted its limited role at the bail stage, stating it is “not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence as that would fall within the domain of trial.”
Justice Borkar observed that the complainant (36) and the applicant (34) are mature adults and that the relationship “appears to have been consensual for a considerable length of time.” The Court held that the central issue required a deeper examination of evidence. “Whether the consent of the complainant was vitiated on account of a false promise of marriage is a matter which requires appreciation of evidence and can be gone into only during the course of trial,” the order stated.
The Court further noted that allegations regarding monetary transactions involved “a disputed question of fact, which cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.” It was also observed that the prosecution did not allege the use of force at the inception of the relationship.
Citing the applicant’s lack of criminal history and the completion of the investigation with the filing of the charge-sheet, the Court found that custodial interrogation was no longer required. The Court opined that “Continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is not permissible in view of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Reaffirming the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court concluded that further custody was unnecessary as the prosecution’s apprehensions could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.
Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more solvent sureties. The conditions imposed include not tampering with evidence, reporting to the Kalwa Police Station once every three months, not leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission, and providing his current residential address to the authorities.
