01Facts
The applicant sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 580/2025 under Section 376 of the IPC and Sections 69/351(3) of the BNS
p. 1The prosecutrix, an air hostess, alleged she entered a live-in relationship with the applicant in 2022 based on a promise of marriage
pp. 1-2She claimed the applicant coerced her into physical relations and later became abusive while deferring marriage
p. 2In October 2025, she discovered the applicant was already married with a child, a fact allegedly concealed by him and his relatives
p. 2The applicant was arrested on 12.11.2025, and a chargesheet has been filed
p. 3The applicant argued the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix, being educated, likely knew of his marital status
pp. 3-402Issues
i.1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful assurance of marriage under Section 69 of the BNS
p. 5ii.2. Whether the consensual nature and duration of the relationship, coupled with the completion of the investigation, warrant the release of the applicant pending trial
p. 3, 503Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding bail
p. 1Substantively, it considered Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it, and Section 376 of the IPC
p. 1The court relied on the principles for bail established in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher (2024) and Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. (2026), focusing on the gravity of the offence and the risk of witness intimidation
p. 5It further referenced Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) regarding the distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise made in bad faith to exploit a woman
p. 7Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69Section 351
04Reasoning
The court rejected the applicant's contention that the prosecutrix’s education and the three-year duration of the relationship automatically implied informed consent
p. 5It noted that the prosecutrix maintained a consistent stance of being unaware of the applicant’s existing marriage, and the applicant did not deny the sexual relationship while being married
pp. 5-6The court reasoned that since the charges were yet to be framed, granting bail would be premature
p. 6Distinguishing the precedents cited by the applicant, the court found that unlike Samadhan, there was no evidence here that the prosecutrix had ever refused marriage; rather, the applicant allegedly actively concealed his marital status to obtain consent
pp. 6-7The court emphasized that a promise of marriage becomes the "foundation of consent," and if made in bad faith to exploit, it vitiates that consent
p. 15Finally, the court noted the risk of witness intimidation given the applicant's alleged prior threats
p. 5, 805Holding
The court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for regular bail at this stage due to the serious nature of the allegations involving deceit, physical assault, and intimidation
p. 8The court clarified that the indulgence in a sexual relationship while concealing a marriage does not inspire confidence for the grant of bail during the nascent stage of proceedings
p. 6Consequently, the bail application was dismissed
p. 8Original Court PDF
Karamveer RathivsState Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
