At Saket Courts, New Delhi, a dramatic bail hearing unfolded in the matter of State v. Guneet Singh. Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi delivered his order on September 19, 2025, allowing bail to the accused, Guneet Singh, in a case arising from allegations of sexual exploitation under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background
The FIR was lodged by a young woman from Sangam Vihar on August 27, 2025. She alleged that Guneet befriended her at work back in 2021, professed his love, and convinced her to enter into a relationship on the pretext of marriage. According to her, his family also played along, treating her as their future daughter-in-law, even giving her "shagun" money and taking her on vacations.
Read also:- Kerala High Court: Blind Beggar Can't Pay Maintenance, But State Must Step in to Stop Irresponsible Polygamy
She claimed that she was pushed into repeated physical intimacy, often in hotels, where Guneet sometimes recorded intimate acts without consent.
The turning point, she alleged, came when Guneet distanced himself, blocked her contacts, and refused marriage. Feeling deceived, she approached police, accusing him of exploiting her trust and dignity.
Arguments in Court
Appearing for Guneet, advocate Kushal Kumar argued that the relationship was consensual and long-term lasting over three and a half years.
"This is nothing more than a failed love affair. Mere failure to marry does not amount to rape or deceit," he submitted.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Delhi HC Ruling: Cheque Bounce Notice Invalid If Amount Differs from Cheque
He stressed that both parties were well-educated adults aware of their religious differences and that the FIR was motivated by bitterness after their breakup.
The prosecution, led by Additional Public Prosecutor Himat Singh, opposed bail, warning that Guneet might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, especially since forensic reports from seized mobile phones were awaited. The complainant's counsel, Avinash Kapoor, took a harsher stand, calling it a "planned exploitation," not just a failed romance. He pointed out that the woman was even pressured to write a letter to the police asking for compromise, which showed the influence exerted by Guneet’s family.
Court's Observations
Judge Jaggi closely examined whether the allegations of deceit held ground. The court noted that the couple’s intimacy had continued for years without protest. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the judge observed that consensual relationships, even if they do not end in marriage, cannot automatically be equated with criminal deceit.
"The prolonged period of three and half years during which sexual relations continued unabatedly between the parties is sufficient to conclude that there never was an element of pressure, force or deceit," the bench observed.
The court also pointed out that issues of inter-religious marriage and conversion became a sore point later, indicating pre-existing awareness of obstacles.
Decision
Balancing concerns about evidence tampering with the accused’s clean record, the court granted bail but attached strict conditions. Guneet must furnish a bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties, surrender his mobile numbers, appear in court when required, and avoid any contact with the complainant. The judge made it clear that any violation of these terms would allow the State to seek cancellation of bail.
With that, the court concluded:
"This is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail," while clarifying that these observations would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Title: State v. Guneet Singh
Case No.: Bail Matter No. 1849/2025
