Delhi High Court denies bail to accused who allegedly ran nine matrimonial profiles, including one posing as a woman

The applicant sought bail in FIR No. 1140/2025 registered at Police Station Karol Bagh for offences under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecutrix alleged that she met the applicant through a matrimonial website in October 2024, after which he induced her into sexual relations on assurances of marriage, repeatedly deferred the marriage, and later threatened her with circulation of obscene photographs.

During investigation, the prosecution alleged that the applicant had created and operated nine matrimonial profiles using different names, particulars, mobile numbers and email IDs, including one profile representing himself as a woman.

A witness from the matrimonial website, examined as PW-5, allegedly proved that the profiles had been created by the applicant.

The prosecutrix also produced an audio recording in which the applicant allegedly admitted having cheated other women and having taken her objectionable photographs; the State subsequently sought forensic examination of the recording.

The applicant relied on the pendency of only the Investigating Officer’s evidence, delay in the FSL report, his period of custody since 6 November 2025, and his family responsibilities.

The State opposed bail, describing the applicant as a “dangerous predator” and contending that further victims might emerge after the FSL report.

Whether, in view of the allegations, the evidence collected during investigation, and the applicant’s alleged operation of multiple matrimonial profiles, the applicant should be released on bail.

Whether the pendency of the trial, the applicant’s period of incarceration, the alleged delay in obtaining the FSL report, and the fact that only the Investigating Officer remained to be examined justified the grant of bail.

Whether the pending forensic examination of the audio recording and the possibility of further victims militated against the grant of bail.

The Court considered the applicant’s entitlement to bail in the context of the offences alleged under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3) of the BNS.

The governing principle was the discretionary assessment of bail by evaluating the seriousness and prima facie strength of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of repetition of alleged conduct, and the risk of absconding or otherwise prejudicing the proceedings.

The Court also treated the evidentiary value of the matrimonial-website records, the testimony of PW-5, and the proposed forensic examination of the audio recording as relevant factors at the bail stage, while expressly clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the applicant or the prosecutrix at trial.

The Court found that the allegations were not confined to a single disputed promise of marriage.

The prosecutrix’s account alleged repeated sexual relations induced by assurances of marriage, followed by blackmail through obscene photographs.

More significantly, the prosecution produced prima facie material that the applicant had created nine distinct matrimonial profiles with varying identities and particulars, including a profile portraying him as a woman; PW-5 had allegedly proved the applicant’s connection with those profiles.

The alleged audio admission, though still requiring forensic examination, further strengthened the prosecution’s opposition to bail because it purportedly concerned similar cheating of other women and the applicant’s possession of the prosecutrix’s objectionable photographs.

Against this material, the Court held that the applicant’s custody, family responsibilities, and the advanced stage of trial did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of absconding, and the State’s assertion that additional victims might emerge.

Accordingly, the Court declined to grant bail while leaving the trial court free to assess the evidence independently.

The bail application was dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for communication to the applicant.

The Court clarified that none of its observations would prejudice either side and that the trial court must independently assess the evidence at the stage of final arguments.