The Delhi High Court has observed that while “no man can be allowed to make any lady agree for sexual relations on the false assurance to get married”, court must carefully examine whether a sexual relationship between two adults was actually induced by such a false assurance or was otherwise consensual.

Justice Girish Kathpalia said that it is only “tainted consensual sexual relation” which constitutes the offence in question, and not merely a consensual sexual relation.

The Court made the observations while granting regular bail to a man accused of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC.

It emphasized that merely because a consensual sexual relationship is subsequently alleged to have been based on an assurance of marriage, it cannot automatically be given colour of criminality.

“The court also has to be cautious and examine in deep as to whether what was purely consensual sexual relation is being given colour of criminality by adding the allegation of assurance to get married,” the Court observed.

It said that court has to read between the lines to ascertain as to whether the consensual sexual relations were tainted with a false assurance to get married.

“It is only such tainted consensual sexual relation which is an offence and not merely a consensual sexual relation,” Justice Kathpalia said.

The accused was alleged to have sexual relations with a 29-year-old woman on the alleged assurance that he would marry her.

According to the Delhi Police, the woman had met the accused at her workplace in December, 2023 and that they subsequently became close and the accused allegedly proposed marriage. The woman claimed that she entered into physical relations with him on several occasions on his assurance of marriage.

The prosecution alleged that the accused was already married and had two children. After the woman allegedly came to know of this, he represented that divorce proceedings with his wife were pending. As per the FIR, the woman nevertheless continued the relationship with him.

Allowing the plea, the Court said that though the allegations were extremely serious as no man can be allowed to make any lady agree for sexual relations on the false assurance to get married, but court must also see as to whether the consensual sexual relations between two adults were purely consensual or the were induced by misrepresentation to get married.

It noted that the prosecutrix was a grown up and working lady, and was not so gullible that she would get carried away on the alleged assurance, that too repeatedly and even after coming to know that the accused was a married man with two children.

The Court also said that it was difficult to believe that despite being colleagues for more than four months, the prosecutrix would not get to know the marital status of the accused.

It also noted that there were chats on record pertaining to the month of March in which prosecutrix was threatening the wife of the accused. Despite that situation, the FIR is lodged in the month of May 2026, it said.

“In view of above circumstances, I am of the prima facie view that the sexual relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual relations and not tainted with any false assurance to get married or any kind of cheating,” the Court said.

It however clarified that the trial court shall form an independent view at the time of culmination of trial on the basis of evidence adduced by both sides.

The Court noted that the accused was in jail since May 15 and the chargesheet was filed, while also clarifying that he shall not try to contact any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner, otherwise appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken against him.

Title: VIMAL v. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Click here to read order