Not Appropriate To Treat Each Breach Of Promise As False Promise Of Marriage: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 20-Yr-Old Man

The High Court was considering an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 376 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “There is a difference between making a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, the possibility that accused might have given a promise with intent to marry her but subsequently might have encountered certain unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage. Each case therefore would depend upon its own case.”

Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, who is her neighbour, had sexually exploited her for two years on the false promise of marriage. She alleged that in August 2023, the petitioner proposed to her, and since then, they had been in a relationship. After a few days, the petitioner invited her to his house and relying on the promise made, the complainant gave her consent for a physical relationship. Thereafter, allegedly the petitioner repeatedly took her to hotels and maintained physical relations with her on multiple occasions. It was further alleged that each time the complainant insisted on the marriage, the petitioner refused on one or another pretext.

The Complainant, made a call to the police, upon which the petitioner and his parents took the Complainant to their house on the false promise of marriage. She was assured that they would get her marriage performed with the petitioner in court. She stayed at the house of the petitioner for a few days. The complainant claimed that on August 20, 2025, the petitioner and the complainant went to the Court for performing the marri,age but he left from there and did not return back. The complainant tried to call the parents of the petitioner but their phone was unavailable. It was in such circumstances that the FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant. The Petitioner filed an anticipatory bail application, but the same came to be dismissed.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual. The WhatsApp chats annexed by the petitioner, copies of which were also provided to the IO, indicated the pattern of mutual affection and voluntary participation rather than coercion or deception. The Bench also took note of the messages from the complainant threatening self-harm and forcing the petitioner to marry her, which prima facie, showed that the relationship deteriorated over time and ultimately turned acrimonious.

“In the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that petitioner made a false promise to marry from the inception of the relationship. Rather, if the WhatsApp chats are to be believed, they demonstrate mutual and consensual romantic association, which later turned sour”, it stated.

The Bench noticed that the Petitioner is a 20 years old youth with no prior criminal antecedents. The status report id not indicate that his custodial interrogation was necessary. “The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations under Section 376 IPC. However, it is equally well-settled that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour. The protection of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must remain paramount, especially when the allegations appear to be exaggerated or motivated”, the order read.

Thus, holding that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, the Bench ordered that in the event of petitioner’s arrest, he be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000with a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO/SHO concerned, subject to certain conditions.

Cause Title: Sumit v. State NCT Of Delhi (Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3767/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Ahmad Ibrahim, Ishwar Singh Deepak, Jeet Chakralarti, Ayesha Zaidi

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate Anil Kumar

Click here to read/download Order