Karamveer Rathi vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: April 17, 2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 559/2026
KARAMVEER RATHI .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Daksh
Sachdeva, Advocates
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, APP for the
State with Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms.
Upasna Bakshi and Ms. Divya
Bakshi, Advocates alongwith SI
Gunjan Sirohi, PS Rajouri Garden
Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Shivam
Sethi and Mr. Nandeesh Nanda,
Advocates for complainant
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
J U D G M E N T (Oral)
1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks grant of
regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.580/2025 dated
11.11.2025 registered at PS: Rajouri Garden under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) and Sections 69/351(3) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ).
2. As per FIR, the complainant/ prosecutrix came in contact with the
applicant in the year 2022 which led to their friendship. They, thereafter,
entered into a live-in relationship, and were residing together in a flat in
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
Subhash Nagar and the applicant promised to marry the prosecutrix and on
that assurance, established physical relations with her without her consent
by coercing her and insisting that they are about to get married anyway.
To assure the prosecutrix further, the applicant also made her meet his
younger sister and brothers and some other relatives. They also travelled
together to Dubai (U.A.E.), Goa and Kashmir. The applicant continued to
reassure the prosecutrix of his intention to marry her and established
physical relations with her on that pretext. Thereafter, the behaviour of the
applicant changed and he began to verbally abuse and physically assault
the prosecutrix under the influence of alcohol every time she confronted
him with his promise to marry her.
3. Though the applicant once again repeated his promise to marry the
prosecutrix in December, 2024, he kept postponing the same by giving
some excuse or the other, and eventually when she seriously confronted
him again with regard to the marriage, days before registration of the FIR,
he physically attacked her and ran away, and was untraceable thereafter
for three days . Then, on 28.10.2025, the applicant contacted the
prosecutrix via a phone call and threatened her with physical harm,
whereafter the prosecutrix contacted his mother, and during the
interaction, she discovered that the applicant was already married and had
a four-year-old daughter, which had never been disclosed to her by him or
his relatives whom she had met. Hence, she approached the Police for
sexual, physical and emotional abuse and cheating which led to
registration of the present FIR.
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
4. The applicant was arrested in relation to the FIR on 12.11.2025. The
chargesheet has since been filed and the case is now at the stage of
framing of charges.
5. Based on the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for the applicant
submits that the present is a false and fabricated case and no offence under
Section 69 BNS is made out against the applicant, primarily, since the
prosecutrix, who is an educated woman employed as an Air Hostess
having sufficient exposure, was involved in a consensual three-year-long
relationship with the applicant out of her own free will and volition, and as
such, it is highly unlikely that she was completely unaware that he was
already married and had a daughter, and that she established a sexual
relationship with him on a false pretext of marriage and continued to be
misguided for such a long period of time. The learned senior counsel
drawn attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.:2025 SCC OnLine
SC 2528 as also of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Manish Kumar vs.
State:2025:DHC:7719 and of this Court in Sushant Kaushik vs. State
[order dated 31.10.2023 in Bail Appln.3175/2023] in support thereof.
6. Further relying upon the contents of the FIR, learned senior counsel
submits that even as per the assertions made therein, the live-in
relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix preceded the
alleged promise to marry by the applicant, which shows that the physical
relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix were not induced by
any false assurances, therefore, the ingredients of the alleged offence are
missing. The assertions made by the prosecutrix are further belied since
the simple fact that the prosecutrix contacted the mother of the applicant
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
on 28.10.2025 which shows that she was in touch with her, making it
improbable and doubtful that she was completely unaware about the same,
which is further evident from the changes in her statements made
subsequently to the Magistrate and to the IO.
7. Learned senior counsel lastly submits that there is no independent
witness/ electronic evidence to support the case of the prosecution, and
though MLC was prepared, the prosecutrix refused to get internal
examination, hence the same is unreliable. There are also no PCR Calls/
MLC from when the applicant allegedly had forced intercourse with the
prosecutrix. Further, though statements of the landlords of the flat wherein
the applicant and the prosecutrix were residing have been recorded by the
IO, the same are hearsay and have no value. Relying upon the judgement
of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amit Agarwal vs. State of NCT of
Delhi:2025:DHC:3018 , the learned senior counsel submits that since the
chargesheet has been filed and the investigation is already complete, there
is no requirement of the applicant continuing to remain in incarceration,
and his custody should not be used as a means of punishment pending
trial.
8. Learned APP for State, per contra , opposes the present application
on the ground that the offences alleged against the applicant are serious in
nature, as he is responsible for not only violence and non-consensual/
forced sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, but also continued deceit
and obtaining her consent by fraud and coercion. The learned APP
submits that the statements of the neighbours/ landlords of the flat where
the prosecutrix and the applicant were residing as recorded by the IO are
consistent and supporting the case of the prosecution. Further, since there
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
are only 11 witnesses of the prosecution, the trial is unlikely to take long
time, and considering the proximity of the applicant to the prosecutrix as
well as the past conduct of the applicant whereby he has threatened the
prosecutrix, there is every likelihood of his engaging in witness
intimidation, if released on bail.
9. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel for the applicant as
also the learned APP for the State and perused the documents on record as
also the judgments cited at the Bar.
10. Prior to adverting on merits involved, this Court is to bear in mind
that while dealing with an application for bail, this Court is not to
undertake a threadbare analysis of the case of the prosecution and the
materials available on record, and rather consider the broad, well-
established factors of the nature and gravity of the accusation, risk of
abscondence, likelihood of witness intimidation, evidence tampering and
repeating of the offence, the overall impact on society at large, and the
like, as recently enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik
Madhukar Sarve & Ors. vs. Vitthal Damuji Meher & Ors.:(2024) 10
SCC 753 and reiterated in Zeba Khan vs. State of U.P. & Ors.:2026 INSC
144 .
11. As borne out herein, the allegations levelled against the applicant
are of a serious nature and cannot be overlooked at this stage merely
because the prosecutrix is an educated working woman and was involved
in a relationship with the applicant for a period of about three years as
sought to be argued by learned senior counsel for the applicant. These gain
significance as a bare perusal of the record reveals that it has all
throughout been her consistent stance of being unaware that the applicant
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
is already married, she only established sexual relations with him based on
his promise to marry her. It is also to be borne in mind that there is no
denial by the applicant of the sexual relationship/ acts he had with the
prosecutrix, when he was already married. All these sows a sharp seed of
doubt in the mind of this Court, as his indulgence in sexual relationship
with the prosecutrix, under the existing circumstances, does not inspire
confidence to grant regular bail to the applicant.
12. In any event, the rest of the issues sought to be raised by learned
senior counsel for the applicant about timing of sexual acts and/ or about
the false assertion qua promise of marriage by the applicant and/ or about
the prosecutrix having knowledge about the applicant already being
married and/ or other similar issues, require a full-fledged trial. Today,
whence the proceedings are at a highly nascent stage and the charges are
yet to be framed, it is too early for granting regular bail to the applicant on
the grounds urged.
13. Also, reliance upon Samadhan (supra) by learned senior counsel
for applicant is of no assistance, particularly, since the same is relating to
adjudication in an appeal from quashing proceedings having a wholly
different set of considerations. Further, the accused therein had the
intention to marry the prosecutrix at first, and it was the prosecutrix who
refused the marriage proposal of the accused several times and then the
relationship turned sour. The same is not the situation herein. And it was
in those circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court condemned the
filing of false rape cases upon failure of private consensual relationships
and quashed the concerned FIR.
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
14. Similarly, reliance upon Manish Kumar (supra) and Sushant
Kaushik (supra) by learned senior counsel for applicant can also not assist
the applicant as the facts therein were totally different from the ones here.
In Manish Kumar (supra) , there was a considerable delay of two-years on
the part of the prosecutrix to seek lodging of the FIR. In Sushant Kaushik
(supra) , the applicant/ accused was a student of the prosecutrix, who was
a professor about 15 years older than him, as also, most importantly, she
herself was already married at the time of forming of the relationship, and
hence, the question of a false promise of marriage by the applicant/
accused did not arise.
15. Moreover, the social context behind cases of the present nature also
merits sensitive consideration by this Court. The same has, in fact, also
been highlighted in the very case of Samadhan (supra) relied on by
learned senior counsel for the applicant as follows:
“31. This Court is conscious of the societal context in
which, in a country such as ours, the institution of marriage
holds deep social and cultural significance. It is, therefore,
not uncommon for a woman to repose complete faith in her
partner and to consent to physical intimacy on the assurance
that such a relationship would culminate in a lawful and
socially recognised marriage. In such circumstances, the
promise of marriage becomes the very foundation of her
consent, rendering it conditional rather than absolute. It is,
thus, conceivable that such consent may stand vitiated where
it is established that the promise of marriage was illusory,
made in bad faith, and with no genuine intention of
fulfilment, solely to exploit the woman. The law must remain
sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been
breached and dignity violated, lest the protective scope of
Section 376 of the IPC be reduced to a mere formality for
those truly aggrieved. At the same time, the invocation of this
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55
principle must rest upon credible evidence and concrete
facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral
conjecture.”
[ Emphasis Supplied ]
16. The aforesaid cumulatively taken, and in light of the clear and
specific allegations in the FIR, there is no reason for this Court to grant
regular bail to the applicant at this stage.
17. In any event, this Court cannot close its eyes to the other allegations
of repeated physical assault(s), abuse and cheating as well as threatening
and intimidation in the FIR as well.
18. In light of the afore-going, this Court is of the considered view that
the applicant has been unable to make out a case for grant of regular bail
at this stage.
19. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
20. Needless to say, expression of view(s) on the merits involved, if
any, are solely for the purposes of adjudication of the present bail
application and shall have no bearing on the overall case/ trial involved.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
APRIL 17, 2026/rr/rs
BAIL APPLN. 559/2026 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:22.04.2026
03:04:55