Jayant Vats vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010287872026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2556/2026
JAYANT VATS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Bharat
Khurana and Mr. Mukul Malik,
Advocates.
versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
( through videoconferencing ) with SI
Anita Meena, PS Keshav Puram.
Mr. Aman Durga and Mr. Aniruddh
Khandelwal, Advocates for R-2 with
R-2.




CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicants seek regular bail in case FIR No. 01/2026 of
PS Keshav Puram for offence under Section 69 of BNS.
2. In furtherance of last order, the prosecutrix filed her detailed affidavit,
sworn on 24.08.2026.

BAIL APPLN. 2556/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.02 18:15:15 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:19:29

3. Broadly speaking, the prosecution allegation is that the
accused/applicant was engaged in a love affair with the prosecutrix across a
period of 08 years and he induced her to consent for sexual relationship with
the false assurance of getting married and subsequently he backed out on the
pretext of mismatch of their horoscopes.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant refers to the orders
passed in the petition filed by the present accused/applicant for quashing the
FIR and in that case, the prosecutrix had expressed her desire not to make
the accused/applicant suffer further incarceration; she also expressed that
now she does not want to get married with the accused/applicant. It is
submitted by learned Senior Counsel for accused/applicant that the sexual
relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix were purely
consensual, without any assurance from either side.
5. On last date, the prosecutrix had appeared with her counsel and the
matter was adjourned so that she could give it a second thought as to
whether she wants to oppose the bail application or not. On last date, the
prosecutrix was also directed to file a specific affidavit as regards her stand
against or in favour of the present bail application. It is in this context that
prosecutrix has filed her affidavit, sworn on 24.08.2026. In her said
affidavit, the prosecutrix has testified that she lodged the FIR due to some
misunderstanding and misconception between her and the accused/applicant
related to their marriage; that she was in a consensual relationship
with the accused/applicant since 2018, but now she does not wish to get

BAIL APPLN. 2556/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.02 18:15:05 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:19:29

married with the accused/applicant and all their disputes stand amicably
sorted out, so she wants to move on.
6. Today also, the prosecutrix has appeared along with her counsel and
she submits that she desires the accused/applicant to be released on bail.
7. Learned APP, assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Anita, opposes the
bail application on the ground of gravity of offence. It is submitted by
learned prosecutor that once FIR was registered, it became a State case and
the prosecutrix cannot be allowed to unilaterally withdraw from prosecution.
It is submitted that the court ought not to encourage the prosecutrix to turn
hostile to prosecution during trial.

8. Of course, technically speaking, in this State case, status of the
prosecutrix is as a witness. But one can also not ignore that in such cases
the prosecutrix is not mere witness but victim as well. The issue as to
whether the eight year long relationship between the accused/applicant and
the prosecutrix was purely consensual or the same was tainted by any false
assurance to get married will be tested through trial. For the time being, it
needs to be understood that the victim herself supports case of the
accused/applicant for grant of bail. What stand the prosecutrix takes once
she steps into the witness box cannot be anticipated at this stage. If the
prosecutrix turns hostile to prosecution, as apprehended by learned APP, law
will take its course. In her affidavit dated 24.08.2026, the prosecutrix does
not say that her complaint and/or her statements recorded during the

BAIL APPLN. 2556/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa
, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.02 18:14:55 +05'30'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:19:29

investigation were false. Moreover, according to the prosecution
case also, the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix were in intimate
relations for past 08 years and admittedly prosecutrix is major in age, so her
consent remains a vital part while analysing the alleged offence. At this
stage, learned APP points out that although the prosecutrix had the age of
consent, but the consent was tainted in this case. On this aspect, as
mentioned above, the prosecutrix herself states in the said affidavit that as
regards the decision to get married, there was some misunderstanding and
misconception which led to lodging of the complaint. To reiterate, the issue
of taint on consent would be examined by the trial court on the basis of
evidence to be adduced by both sides.

9. Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to deprive
further liberty to accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is
allowed and accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

10. A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for informing the accused/applicant.
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe
c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8
01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.09.02 18:14:43 +05'30'

GIRISH
KATHPALIA


GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
ry
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/

BAIL APPLN. 2556/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:02.09.2026
18:19:29