-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“Prima facie, it appears to be a clear case of extra-marital consensual relationship… It is not believable that the prosecutrix would have remained in the dark across such a long period”— Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, in a judgment that revisits the nuanced interplay of consent, deceit, and prolonged romantic relationships. Justice Girish Kathpalia held that continued consensual sexual relations spanning years—despite red flags—cannot later be re-characterized as rape solely on the ground of alleged false promise of marriage, especially when the prosecutrix was an empowered, independent individual.
The Court took critical note of the long-term nature of the relationship, the prosecutrix's education and professional background, and her own admissions of extended intimacy with the accused, to conclude that the relationship appeared voluntary and mutually consensual.
“Even After Alleged Discovery of Marital Status, She Waited Over Two Years to File Complaint”
The prosecutrix, a 28-year-old consultant who had worked on a project under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, alleged that she met the accused (a PwC employee) in 2019. According to her, he promised to marry her and on the basis of that promise, they entered into a sexual relationship in September 2019 at a friend’s flat.
Their relationship thereafter extended across years, with multiple outstation trips, visits to his family home, and even a New Year’s party at his sister’s residence. Notably, she alleged that in January 2023—during a trip to Europe that she financed—she discovered chats and pictures on the accused's phone confirming he was already married. Despite this, she filed the FIR only in April 2025, over two years later.
Justice Kathpalia observed: “As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, merely because the prosecutrix was not in India, the delay cannot be explained. Nothing prevented the prosecutrix from lodging such complaint wherever she was residing in January 2023, when the alleged fraud was revealed to her.”
The Court noted the unexplained delay as casting serious doubt on the truthfulness of the FIR, especially given the prosecutrix’s background and lack of any evident fear.
“Consent Obtained by Misconception of Fact Requires Immediate and Natural Reaction—Not Romantic Continuance”
While the prosecutrix claimed that she had been emotionally manipulated on a false promise of marriage, the Court emphasized that such claims lose credibility when the relationship continues despite red flags and when the prosecutrix has independent agency.
The Court stated: “Prima facie, it appears to be a clear case of extra-marital consensual relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix; and that it is not believable that across such long period of relationship, the prosecutrix would have remained in dark about marital status of the accused/applicant.”
The Court underscored that the prosecutrix was not a naive individual but a globally travelling consultant who had the social and professional means to evaluate her relationship and take timely decisions.
“Delayed FIR, Prolonged Intimacy, and Persistent Gifts: Circumstances Undermine Rape Allegation”
The defense pointed out that the prosecutrix continued to:
Visit the accused’s home, even after sensing “something wrong” in January 2020;
Bear the financial expenses of their trips, gifts, and alcohol;
Travel abroad with him in 2023, despite past suspicions.
All of these actions, the Court noted, show that the relationship was not coerced or predicated solely on a false promise.
Justice Kathpalia observed: “Looking into the above described profile of the prosecutrix, it also cannot be a case that she was scared to take action against the accused/applicant in time.”
The prosecution did not contest the fact that a chargesheet had already been filed and the investigation was complete, further reinforcing that custodial interrogation was not required at this stage.
“Observations Are Only For Deciding Liberty; Not on Merits of Offence”
The Court was careful to note that its comments were only limited to the bail consideration and shall not affect the trial proceedings. It said:
“These observations are only for limited purpose of deciding the issue of liberty... None of the above observations shall be kept in mind by the trial court at the final outcome of the proceedings.”
Nevertheless, the ruling reflects a growing judicial awareness of the misuse of Section 376 IPC in consensual relationships, especially where delayed complaints and prolonged emotional entanglement are involved.
Bail Granted on Personal Bond
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that in the event of arrest, the accused be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety, and directed him to join investigation as required.
Date of Decision: 4th September 2025
