DATE: 26/09/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Arun Monga
FACTS:
The case arose out of FIR No. 341/2025
registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi, against the applicant,
Naveen Yadav, for offences punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS). The complainant alleged that she met the applicant on the
matrimonial website Shaadi.com in April 2025. The applicant introduced himself
as a Dubai-based professional seeking marriage and assured her of his family’s
consent. They remained in frequent communication through calls and WhatsApp,
and he repeatedly promised marriage. On June 9, 2025, they met at a restaurant
in Noida to discuss marriage plans. Later, on June 13, 2025, the applicant
invited the complainant to meet his mother and sister at a hotel in Delhi,
where he persuaded her to stay with him in a room, promising imminent marriage.
The complainant alleged that he made physical advances and, despite her initial
resistance, she consented under the belief they would soon be married. He also
allegedly took objectionable photographs of her.
Subsequently, when the complainant asked
about marriage, the applicant and his family allegedly demanded a flat worth Rs.2–3 crores in
Dubai, a luxury car, and cash, threatening that the marriage would not proceed
otherwise. Feeling deceived and harassed, she filed a
complaint leading to his arrest on August 12, 2025. The applicant claimed
innocence, contending that the relationship was consensual, the FIR was false,
and that the complainant had earlier admitted via WhatsApp that no intimacy
occurred. He also argued that his sudden arrest caused job loss in Dubai and a
three-year work ban. He sought regular bail, stating that continued
incarceration was unnecessary since the trial had not commenced.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Court was whether the applicant, accused of
engaging in a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage and making
alleged dowry-related demands, was entitled to be released on regular bail
pending trial under Section 69 of the BNS. The Court also had to consider
whether the allegations made constituted a prosecutable offence under the said
provision, or whether the circumstances reflected a failed consensual
relationship rather than a criminal act.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Delhi High Court granted bail to the
applicant, holding that his continued detention was unnecessary and that the
material on record did not justify prolonged incarceration. The Court observed
that the case involved two consenting adults who had entered into a
relationship with the intent to explore marriage, which ultimately did not
materialize. It directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a
personal bond and solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court,
subject to standard conditions, while clarifying that its observations were
limited to the bail proceedings and not on the merits of the case.
The Court noted that the complainant’s own
WhatsApp message contradicted the FIR, as she had earlier stated that no
physical intimacy had taken place. This raised doubts regarding the veracity of
the allegations. Even if intimacy had occurred, the Court emphasized that a
consensual relationship between adults, entered into with genuine intent to
marry, which later failed due to changed circumstances, does not amount to rape
or sexual assault under the law. The purpose of pre-marital interaction or
courtship, the Court observed, is to determine compatibility, and the decision
not to proceed with marriage cannot be criminalized as a breach of promise.
Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the
allegations of dowry demand and blackmail, even if taken at face value, do not
attract Section 69 of the BNS and are separate offences triable independently.
The Court took into account that the applicant had no prior criminal record,
had already suffered significant hardship including loss of employment and a
ban in the UAE, and that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose
since the trial was likely to take time. Stressing the fundamental principle that
“bail is the rule and jail an exception,” the Court found that the applicant
posed no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, and therefore,
enlargement on bail was justified at this stage.
ANALYSIS:
The Delhi High Court’s decision in this
case underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in distinguishing between a
failed consensual relationship and an act of criminal misconduct. The Court
carefully examined the factual inconsistencies, particularly the complainant’s
WhatsApp messages contradicting her FIR statement, to assess the credibility of
the allegations. By emphasizing that a consensual relationship arising out of a
genuine intention to marry, which subsequently fails, cannot automatically be treated
as rape, the Court reaffirmed established precedents such as Pramod Suryabhan
Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra.
The judgment highlights that the criminal law should not be used as an
instrument of retribution for emotional disappointment, and that courts must
ensure that accusations based on broken relationships are evaluated within the
framework of consent, intent, and evidentiary integrity.
Additionally, the Court’s reasoning
reflects a broader constitutional commitment to the principle of liberty under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It reiterated that bail, not jail, is
the rule, and pre-trial detention should not serve as a form of punishment when
the accused poses no flight risk or threat to the investigation. The Court’s
observation that the alleged dowry demands, even if true, fall outside the
ambit of Section 69 of the BNS further indicates a disciplined application of
statutory interpretation. By separating moral grievances from legal
culpability, the judgment reinforces the need for judicial restraint in
criminalizing interpersonal disputes and ensures that the process of justice
does not become a tool for personal vendetta.
info@adhwaitha.com