“Live-In Relationship Doesn't Negate Deception In False Promise To Marry Cases”: Delhi High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail
The Delhi High Court has held that an accused cannot rely on the plea that he was “not legally married” but only in a live-in relationship with another woman to rebut allegations of false promise of marriage.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while rejecting a pre-arrest bail plea in a case registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the accused had developed a relationship with the prosecutrix and allegedly established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage.
It was alleged that the prosecutrix later discovered that the accused was already in a relationship with another woman and had two children from that relationship, facts which had been concealed from her.
Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that the prosecutrix's consent was obtained under a misconception of fact induced by the accused's promise of marriage and concealment of material facts.
The accused, however, contended that the relationship was consensual and argued that he was not legally married to the other woman, but only in a live-in relationship with her.
Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the nature of the existing relationship does not dilute allegations of deception if relevant facts were concealed. It observed,
“Applicant has argued that he was merely in a live-in relationship with Z (name redacted) and that since he was not legally married to her, the promise of marriage allegedly made to the prosecutrix could not be termed as false. This Court does not find merit in the said contention. The facts noted in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the photographs placed on record and relied upon by the learned Sessions Court, prima facie indicate that the applicant and Z were living together and that the family members of the applicant had accepted the relationship.”
The Court also took note of the accused's failure to join the investigation despite notice and attempting to mislead the court during earlier proceedings.
Holding that these factors weighed against the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the application.
Appearance: Mr. Nimish Chib, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Arpita Mishra, P.S. Vijay Vihar, Delhi Mr. Archit Upadhayay, Advocate (DHCLSC) for the prosecutrix
Case title: Rohit v. State
Case no.: BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026