While dismissing the bail application of a man who allegedly established physical relations with a woman on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, the Delhi High Court has held that the subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of such promise extended by the accused.

The High Court was considering an application whereby the applicant sought regular bail in a case arising out of an FIR for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “The material on record indicates that the applicant had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix that there was no impediment to their marriage, including on the aspect of kundali matching, and had represented that the horoscopes had already matched. It is on the basis of such assurances that physical relations were established over a period of time. The subsequent refusal to marry on the ground of non-matching of kundalis, despite earlier assurances to the contrary, prima facie raises a question as to the nature and genuineness of the promise extended by the applicant. Such conduct, at this stage, would attract the offence under Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically deals with cases of sexual relations induced by deceit or false assurance of marriage.”

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The prosecutrix, aged 27 years, alleged sexual exploitation and deceit on the pretext of a false promise of marriage by the applicant. It was alleged that the prosecutrix had known the applicant and his family since 2018. The prosecutrix claimed that the applicant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix on multiple occasions on the assurance of marriage. According to the prosecutrix, the applicant had subsequently refused to marry her because their birth-charts (kundalis) did not match, claiming that he and his family held strong beliefs in astrology. It was stated that the prosecutrix had earlier submitted a written complaint, which she had subsequently withdrawn after she was allegedly assured by the applicant and his family that they would solemnise the marriage. However, upon the alleged failure of the said assurance, the prosecutrix submitted a fresh written complaint, pursuant to which the FIR for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 69 of BNS was registered, and investigation was taken up.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the parties had known each other since their college days and had remained in a relationship for several years. “In this Court’s view, the material on record, including the complaint, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 of BNSS, and the chats exchanged between the parties, prima facie indicate that the applicant had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix of marriage and had represented that there was no impediment to their marriage. The conversations also revealed that the applicant had insisted that physical proximity prior to marriage was not objectionable, as there was no hurdle in their marriage”, it stated.

It was also noticed that the applicant herein had taken steps such as seeking the birth details of the prosecutrix for kundali matching and had, on multiple occasions, assured her that the horoscopes had matched. The Bench found that despite various assurances, physical relations allegedly continued on the basis of the promise of marriage extended by the applicant.

The Bench found that when the prosecutrix first lodged a complaint in November 2025, the same was withdrawn only on the assurance of marriage allegedly given by the applicant and his family. However, despite such assurance, no steps were taken towards solemnization of the marriage, and the applicant thereafter refused to marry the prosecutrix on the ground of non-matching of kundalis. “The sequence of events, at this stage, cannot be viewed as a mere relationship turning sour, but rather suggests that assurances of marriage were repeatedly extended despite the applicant being aware of the insistence of his family on kundali matching”, it noted.

Thus, considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during the investigation so far, and the fact that the chargesheet in the case was yet to be filed, the Court dismissed the application for the grant of regular bail.

Cause Title: Jayant Vats v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1403)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sharma, Advocates Kuldeep Choudhary, Amit Choudhary

Respondent: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar, SI Anita

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.