Over Four Years Together, Earlier Letter Silent On Marriage Promise: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape And Miscarriage FIR

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 528/2026, registered under Sections 376 and 313 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had physical relations with her on a promise of marriage and gave her medicine represented as pain medication, after which she suffered a miscarriage.

The petitioner maintained that their relationship was consensual and that they lived together from 2022 until May 2026. He had joined the investigation pursuant to interim protection and attended questioning on two occasions. The State stated that his potency test and further interrogation concerning the medicine remained pending. The Court also noted an earlier letter from the complainant describing a relationship and pregnancy but not alleging a false promise to marry.

The Court considered the application under Sections 482 and 528 BNSS and the allegations under Sections 376 and 313 IPC.

Relying on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, including its discussion of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, the Court noted that a sexual relationship is not, merely because it later ends, criminalised as rape. For consent to be vitiated by a promise to marry, the promise must be shown to have been false and made in bad faith, with a direct nexus to the consent; a prolonged relationship may be relevant to whether intimacy occurred solely because of that promise. The Court also recognised that a promise made with no genuine intention of fulfilment may vitiate consent where supported by credible evidence.

The Court noted that the parties had lived together for more than four years and that the complainant’s earlier letter described their relationship and her pregnancy without referring to a false promise to marry. On the material before it, the Court considered it prima facie possible that the relationship was consensual and that physical intimacy was not based solely on such a promise.

It left the truth of the promise allegation, and the allegations concerning administration of medicine, to investigation and trial. The petitioner had joined the investigation, undertook to cooperate and attend when required, had provided contact numbers, and had no prior criminal antecedents; the Court also noted that he had moved to Bihar.

These included cooperating with the investigation and attending when required, not contacting or threatening the complainant or tampering with evidence, keeping his mobile number operational, informing the IO before changing his number or address, and committing no offence during the proceedings. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the merits.