The Delhi High Court on February 17 refused to grant regular bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while dismissing the plea, observed that the material on record prima facie suggested repeated assurances of marriage despite alleged contradictions regarding horoscope matching.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
The case arose out of FIR No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background of the Case
The complainant, a 27-year-old woman, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused since their college days in 2018. According to her complaint, the accused repeatedly promised to marry her and, on that assurance, established physical relations over several years.
She claimed that she was introduced to his family as his prospective wife and even participated in family functions. The relationship, she said, continued on the understanding that marriage was certain.
However, in mid-2025, the accused allegedly began distancing himself. Eventually, he refused to marry her, citing non-matching of their horoscopes (kundalis). The woman further alleged that she had earlier withdrawn a complaint in November 2025 after fresh assurances of marriage from the accused and his family. When no steps were taken toward marriage, she approached the police again in January 2026.
During the investigation, WhatsApp chats between the parties were examined. The accused’s mobile phone was seized and sent for forensic analysis. Hotel records of places where the couple allegedly stayed were also verified.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
Arguments Before the Court
Senior counsel for the accused argued that the relationship was consensual and had lasted nearly eight years. It was submitted that the accused had genuinely intended to marry the complainant, and the only obstacle was the non-matching of kundalis.
The defence contended that a failed relationship or a broken promise does not automatically amount to rape.
On the other hand, counsel for the prosecutrix opposed bail, pointing to WhatsApp conversations that allegedly showed the accused had assured her that the horoscopes had matched and there was no impediment to marriage. It was argued that she was initially reluctant to enter into physical relations but gave in due to repeated assurances.
The State also opposed bail, stating that the allegations were serious and the investigation was still at a crucial stage, with the chargesheet yet to be filed.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
After hearing all sides, the Court noted that it was undisputed that the parties had known each other for several years. However, the chats placed on record suggested that the accused had repeatedly assured the complainant that there was no obstacle to their marriage.
The Court specifically referred to a chat dated September 14, 2023, where the accused allegedly wrote, “kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum” (we are getting married tomorrow).
“The material on record indicates that the applicant had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix that there was no impediment to their marriage,” the bench observed.
The Court further noted that if horoscope matching was of such decisive importance, it should have been resolved at the outset. Instead, the record showed continued assurances that the issue had been addressed.
Justice Sharma distinguished between a genuine promise that later fails due to circumstances and a false assurance given from the beginning to obtain consent.
“At this stage, the subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the genuineness of the promise,” the Court observed.
The judge added that Section 69 of the BNS specifically deals with sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage, and at the bail stage, the Court only needs to see whether a prima facie case exists.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
The Decision
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the material collected so far, and the fact that the chargesheet has not yet been filed, the Court declined to grant regular bail.
“Having regard to the nature of allegations… this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage,” the order stated.
The bail application was accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Title: Jayant Vats v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: Bail Appln. 422/2026
Decision Date: February 17, 2026
