The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of establishing a physical relationship with a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage. The court observed that the material on record indicated possible concealment of crucial facts by the accused.
Background of the Case
The case arises from FIR No. 586/2025 registered at Vijay Vihar Police Station under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the complaint, the prosecutrix met the accused in 2023 while working at a restaurant. Their friendship gradually developed, and the accused allegedly promised to marry her. Based on this assurance, the prosecutrix entered into a physical relationship with him.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Says 60-Day Probe Rule Doesn’t Give Accused Automatic Bail in POCSO Cases
She later claimed that she became pregnant twice during the course of the relationship. The first pregnancy was terminated after the accused allegedly advised her to do so. When she became pregnant again in October 2025 and insisted on marriage, the accused refused and disclosed that he was already married.
The accused argued that the relationship was consensual and that there was no false promise of marriage. His counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was aware of his relationship with another woman, Zeenat Parveen, and therefore there was no deception involved.
On the other hand, the State and the prosecutrix opposed the plea. They contended that the accused had concealed the fact that he had two children from his relationship with Zeenat Parveen and had misled the prosecutrix into believing he would marry her.
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In After Decades-Long Wage Dispute, Flags Irregularities in Jaipur Udyog Case
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma examined the investigation records, including photographs and birth certificates, which indicated that the accused had an established domestic relationship with another woman and children from that relationship.
The Court noted that there was no clear indication from the WhatsApp chats that the prosecutrix was aware of these material facts.
“The material placed on record prima facie indicates that the applicant had dishonest intention from the inception,” the Court observed.
The Court further stated that even if the accused claimed it was a live-in relationship, the evidence suggested a stable domestic setup acknowledged by his family.
Read also:- Sabarimala Case: Supreme Court Warns Against Diluting Religion in Name of Reform
A significant factor weighed against the accused was his failure to join the investigation despite notice. The Court also took note of allegations that he had attempted to mislead the Sessions Court by making incorrect submissions about the prosecutrix’s marital status.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the prima facie material on record, and the conduct of the accused, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail.
“The conduct of the applicant… does not persuade this Court to exercise its discretion in favour of grant of anticipatory bail,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with the clarification that observations made in the order shall not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Rohit vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026
Judge: Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decision Date: 07 April 2026
