“Prima Facie A Predator Of Innocent Girls": Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Who Had 9 Matrimonial Profiles
The Court found material suggesting accused cheated multiple women through fake matrimonial profiles, and noting that earlier IO was replaced after suppressing audio confession, ordered forensic analysis.
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of raping a woman under a false promise of marriage, after finding that he had allegedly created and operated as many as nine different profiles on a matrimonial website using varying names, ages, and occupations, including one profile in which he posed as a woman, “Shweta Sharma”. The Court held that the range and nature of these profiles lent credence to the prosecution's contention that the accused was preying on unsuspecting women through a systematic pattern of deception.
The Bench noted that the accused had allegedly admitted, in an audio recording made by the complainant, to cheating several other women in a similar manner and to having taken obscene photographs of her, and that this recording, earlier not sent for forensic examination by the previous investigating officer, was now the subject of a fresh application before the trial court seeking forensic analysis.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “During the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused/applicant had created and operated 09 different profiles on the said matrimonial website using different names, particulars, mobile phone numbers and email IDs. Those profiles have been enlisted at page 03 of the status report dated 14.08.2026. As mentioned above, those profiles are of different ranges of age, different ranges of qualification and different ranges of occupation/income, which prima facie lends credence to the argument of learned ASC that the accused/applicant is a predator of innocent girls. Not only this, one of the profiles created by the accused/applicant is of a girl, to whom he named Sweta Sharma. All those profiles were created by the accused/applicant using his mobile phone number and his email IDs. The prosecution has examined a witness (PW-5) from the said matrimonial website before the trial court, who has proved that all those distinct profiles were created by the accused/applicant”.
Advocate Rakhi Dubey appeared for the petitioner while Amol Sinha, ASC appeared for the respondent and the complainant appeared in person.
According to the September 2025 FIR, the complainant met Jaiswal on a matrimonial website in October 2024, where he agreed to marry her after learning about her previous divorce. However, he allegedly induced her into a sexual relationship under the pretext of marriage, repeatedly deferred the proposal, pressured her for a threesome, and later blackmailed her with objectionable photographs to force further sexual contact.
A representative from the website testified before the trial court that all nine profiles traced directly back to Jaiswal's phone number and email IDs. Furthermore, the prosecutrix handed over an audio recording in which Jaiswal admitted to cheating and blackmailing several other women in a similar manner.
Although the defense argued that the adult complainant could not credibly claim to have been misled by a promise of marriage and that the trial was at its final stage, the Bench refused bail. The Court noted the severe nature of the allegations, the digital evidence, and the potential for more victims to come forward once forensic reports are completed.
The Court also highlighted serious investigative lapses, noting that the previous Investigating Officer was officially replaced for failing to make the recorded audio confession part of the charge sheet or send it for forensic analysis.
“…the accused/applicant had admitted having clicked objectionable pictures of the prosecutrix and having cheated a number of girls in similar manner. That admission made by the accused/applicant before the prosecutrix was audio recorded by her and she gave that recording to the earlier IO, but for reasons best known to her, the IO did not make that audio recording part of the chargesheet and did not send the same to the FSL. It is after last date that the IO was changed and now, as informed today, the State has moved an application before the trial court seeking forensic analysis of that audio recording”, the Bench said.
Cause Title: Gaurav Jaiswal v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8151)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Rakhi Dubey and Bipin Dubey, Advocates.
Respondent: Amol Sinha, ASC, with WSI Shruti Saini and IO/SI Kajal Tyagi; For the Complainant: Vineet Malhotra, Advocate (through video conferencing); complainant in person.