01Facts
The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 586/2025, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
pp. 1-2 · ¶ 3The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her starting in 2023 under a false promise of marriage
p. 2 · ¶ 4Following a pregnancy and subsequent termination in September 2025, the prosecutrix discovered she was pregnant again in October 2025
p. 2 · ¶ 4-5Upon demanding marriage, the applicant refused and revealed he was already married
p. 2 · ¶ 4Investigative reports revealed the applicant had two children with a woman named Zeenat Parveen, with whom he had performed a marriage ceremony and shared a residence
pp. 4-5 · ¶ 10-11The applicant previously obtained interim protection from a Sessions Court by falsely claiming the prosecutrix was already married to another person
p. 4 · ¶ 9 · p. 5 · ¶ 12Despite notices issued under Section 84 of the BNSS, the applicant failed to join the investigation
p. 3 · ¶ 5 · p. 7 · ¶ 1702Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 69 of the BNS in light of allegations regarding a false promise of marriage and concealment of a prior marital/domestic relationship.
pp. 5-6 · ¶ 13-16ii.2. Whether the applicant’s conduct, including failure to join the investigation and attempting to mislead the court, precludes the exercise of discretionary relief.
p. 7 · ¶ 1703Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it
p. 2 · ¶ 3It further considered the procedural obligations under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the duty of an accused to join an investigation upon notice
p. 3 · ¶ 5The court relied on the principle that consent obtained under a "misconception of fact"—specifically a dishonest promise of marriage—vitiates the consensual nature of the act
p. 7 · ¶ 16Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 84
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s allegations were supported by material evidence indicating the applicant had a pre-existing domestic relationship and two children, facts which were suppressed from the prosecutrix
p. 5 · ¶ 13While the applicant contended the relationship was consensual and that he was merely in a live-in relationship with Zeenat Parveen, the Court found that the birth certificates and photographs of family ceremonies prima facie established a marital-like bond that the applicant intended to hide
p. 6 · ¶ 14-15The Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on WhatsApp chats, noting that the messages did not prove the prosecutrix was aware of his children or the extent of his prior commitment
p. 6 · ¶ 14Crucially, the Court highlighted the applicant's "dishonest intention from the inception," as he induced the prosecutrix into a physical relationship while maintaining a parallel family
p. 7 · ¶ 16The Court further noted that the applicant’s attempt to mislead the Sessions Court regarding the prosecutrix's marital status and his persistent non-cooperation with the investigation weighed heavily against his plea for equitable relief
p. 7 · ¶ 1705Holding
The Court held that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that the applicant induced the prosecutrix into physical relations through a misconception of facts and a false promise of marriage
p. 7 · ¶ 16Consequently, the Court found no merit in the application for anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the applicant's obstructive conduct
p. 7 · ¶ 17-18The application was rejected
p. 7 · ¶ 18Original Court PDF
RohitvsState Nct Of Delhi And Anr,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
