New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Thursday granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of committing rape on the pretext of marriage, dismissing the woman’s claim of ignorance of his marital status after four years of intimacy and observed that it rather appeared to be a “clear case of extramarital consensual relations”.
While granting bail, the court noted the long delay in filing of FIR by the woman and her claim that she sensed something was wrong but continued her relationship with the man.
The court of Justice Girish Kathpalia also noted the argument of the counsel of the accused that the woman was a “well-educated working lady travelling even abroad repeatedly in connection with her work” and that it was “not believable that she would be so gullible as to enter into long time sexual relations with the accused/applicant, blindly believing his promise to get married”.
The order noted details and timeline of the relationship, as given by the 28-year-old woman in her FIR lodged against the man this year.
According to her complaint, the woman, employed as a consultant, had met the accused in May-June 2019 in India while working on a project under the Ministry of Women & Child Development. Their professional relationship subsequently evolved into a “personal relationship”.
In July 2019, the man while meeting the woman at a hotel “proposed her with the promise of a committed relationship and expressed his desire to marry her within a year or two”. While their relationship turned into a sexual one, the accused never disclosed that he was already married, states the woman.
The relationship deepened over the years, involving frequent meetings in Delhi, joint trips outside and continued sexual relations. The woman states that she started sensing something wrong in his behaviour as if he was concealing something, and he often told her that calls from his wife were from an “ex-girlfriend”.
She met his family members, including cousins and parents, and even accompanied him to a New Year’s party at his sister’s home, but nothing and no one indicated that he was married. The woman also introduced him to her family in Uttarakhand in March 2021, she states.
Further, the women claimed to have borne many of their expenses, including trips to places like Agra, Goa, and Nainital, and bought the man expensive gifts, including liquor.
In November 2021, the woman states, she sustained a head injury after the man pushed her but she did not lodge a complaint. She also said the accused had dissuaded her from pursuing a Master’s degree abroad in the name of getting married; though she eventually opted for her career and shifted to Dublin on scholarship.
The revelation
The deceit, according to the woman, was uncovered in December 2022-January 2023 when the man visited her in Dublin and “convinced her to finance their Europe trip, which she did and they travelled together to various destinations in Europe in January 2023 at her cost”.
During that trip, she accessed his mobile phone while he was intoxicated, and discovered pictures and WhatsApp chats revealing his marriage and other relationships.
Exactly a week later, on 11 January, the woman says she confronted him, “in response to which” he slapped her and accusing her of violating his privacy. The man subsequently attempted to revive the relationship after their return to Dublin, but the woman says she refused.
She finally lodged a complaint against him more than two years later, in April 2025, under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.
The man argued in court through his counsel that the FIR was based on a lengthy complaint and that the woman was well-educated and working it was “not believable that she would be so gullible”.
The man further contended that it was not believable that in her repeated visits to his residence and meetings with his family, she would not have come across any material reflecting that he was married.
Furthermore, it was highlighted by the accused that she continued the relationship with him even after sensing “something wrong” in January 2020, “which clearly shows that it was a consensual relationship between the two”.
The significant delay of over two years in lodging the FIR raised strong suspicions about the “truthfulness of her FIR”, the accused’s counsel argued.
Opposing the anticipatory bail, the woman’s counsel said “delay in lodging an FIR cannot be a ground for rejection”, attributed it to her residing abroad and said she filed the complaint soon after returning to India.
The HC, regarding the delay in lodging FIR, noted that “merely because the prosecutrix was not in India, the delay cannot be explained”, and after considering all circumstances granted anticipatory bail to the man viewing the matter as one of “consensual relations”.
The court said in the order that it found substance in the counsel’s view and no reason to deprive the man of liberty but noted that the observations were for the limited purpose of deciding on bail. It directed that the man be released on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Why Delhi HC rejected bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam & 7 others in 2020 riots case