Victim & Accused Got Engaged During 5-Yr-Long Relationship: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Army Officer In False Promise Of Marriage Rape Case
The Delhi High Court was considering an application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Justice Prateek Jalan, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted the relief of anticipatory bail to an Army Officer booked in a false promise of marriage rape case after noting that the accused and the prosecutrix performed pre-marriage rituals, such as the Roka /engagement ceremony, in the course of a long relationship of almost five years. The High Court also took note of the delay in registration of the FIR.
The High Court was considering an application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “The fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix performed pre-marriage rituals, such as the “Roka”/engagement ceremony in the course of a long relationship of almost five years, and a physical relationship of almost two years, coupled with the contents of the complaint dated 22.07.2025, renders prima facie plausibility to the petitioner's case.”
Advocate Abhay Kumar represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner came into contact with the prosecutrix in 2021, through Instagram, as she used to run an online cosmetic and garments business, and he used to purchase goods from her. Consequently, both developed a friendship and started talking regularly. In June 2021, the petitioner visited the prosecutrix’s house, met her family members, and expressed his desire to marry her. In response to an inquiry by the prosecutrix’s family, the petitioner and his sister, stated that they had no demands in respect of the prospective marriage. On this assurance, the prosecutrix and her family agreed to the marriage. It was alleged that when the prosecutrix was alone at her house, the petitioner came to her house, and on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her.
The petitioner was employed in the Army, and whenever he got leave, he allegedly took the prosecutrix to hotels. Even after the engagement, the petitioner established physical relations on the assurance of marriage. The petitioner, after sometime stopped communicating with the prosecutrix. When she contacted him, the petitioner and his sister allegedly demanded Rs 10 lakh as dowry for the solemnisation of the marriage. One day, the petitioner and his sister, alongwith other people, came to meet the prosecutrix, during which the petitioner assaulted her and fled. Thereafter, she called the police, and a case was registered. The petitioner preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, in which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to join the investigation.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecutrix claimed to have been acquainted with the petitioner since the year 2021 and the FIR was registered in the year 2025. “While delay in registration of the FIR may not by itself be conclusive, particularly in the case of allegations of sexual offences, what is significant in the present case is that the prosecutrix had, in the interregnum, made a prior complaint to the police on 22.07.2025, which did not include any such allegation”, it added.
It was further noticed that the subsequent NCR referred to an allegation of physical assault, but no allegation of rape, whether on the false pretext of marriage or otherwise. The allegation was made for the first time in her complaint dated September 15, 2025, upon which the FIR was registered on October 9, 2025. The Bench also took note of the fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix performed a Roka/engagement ceremony in the course of a long relationship of almost five years.
The Bench also noticed that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents. Allowing the bail application, the Bench directed that, in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR, the petitioner would be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety.
Cause Title: Vineet Sorout v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1898)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Abhay Kumar, Shagun Ruhil, Karan Chopra
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Manjeet Arya, SI Sujata, SI Sachin, Advocate Vishal Chaudhary