Consensual S*x Can’t Be Criminalised Merely Over Marriage Promise: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Rape Case

The Delhi High Court has held that a consensual s*xual relationship between two adults cannot, merely on the basis of a subsequent allegation of a promise to marry, be automatically clothed with criminality. The Court underscored that the decisive question is whether the alleged false assurance of marriage had, in fact, vitiated or tainted the consent of the woman at the time the s*xual relationship was established.

Justice Kathpalia Grants Bail In Case Under Sections 376 And 506 IPC

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation while granting regular bail to a man accused of offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, LiveLaw reported. The Court stressed that while an individual cannot be permitted to procure consent for s*xual relations through a false assurance of marriage, the prosecution must nevertheless establish the requisite nexus between the alleged misrepresentation and the consent in question. Can Husbands Be Prosecuted for Violent S*x With Wives Despite Marital Rape Exemption? Supreme Court To Decide.

The Court cautioned against mechanically converting a consensual relationship into a criminal prosecution merely because an allegation of a promise to marry is subsequently introduced. It emphasised that the judicial exercise must involve a close scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the consent was genuinely induced by the alleged assurance or whether the relationship was consensual in its inception and continuation. S*x Between the Husband and Wife Must Be Consensual, Says Gujarat High Court; Denies Bail to Man Accused of Subjecting Wife to Unnatural S*x and Physical Cruelty.

Courts Must 'Read Between The Lines', Says Judge

Justice Kathpalia observed that courts must carefully "read between the lines" to ascertain whether the s*xual relationship was actually tainted by a false promise of marriage. In the Court's prima facie assessment, it is such a tainted consensual relationship, rather than a consensual s*xual relationship simpliciter, that can constitute the offence in the circumstances alleged.

How The Case Arose

The case arose from an FIR in which the accused was alleged to have entered into a physical relationship with a 29-year-old woman after allegedly assuring her that he would marry her. According to the prosecution, the woman had met the accused at her workplace in December 2023, and the two subsequently became close. She alleged that the accused proposed marriage and that s*xual relations followed on the assurance that he would marry her.

The prosecution further alleged that the accused was already married and had two children. It was alleged that, after the woman became aware of his marital status, he represented that divorce proceedings with his wife were pending. The relationship, according to the prosecution, nevertheless continued.

HC Notes Woman Was 'Mature, Working Adult'

While assessing the bail application, the High Court took note of the surrounding circumstances and observed that the prosecutrix was a mature, working adult. The Court found it difficult, at the prima facie stage, to accept that she would have repeatedly acted upon the alleged assurance even after becoming aware that the accused was married and had two children.

The Court also considered the fact that the parties had been colleagues for several months and observed that it was difficult to accept, at the prima facie stage, that the prosecutrix remained unaware of the accused's marital status. The Court further referred to chats exchanged in March, including communications in which the prosecutrix had allegedly threatened the accused's wife, while noting that the FIR came to be registered in May 2026.

Court Forms Prima Facie View That Relationship Was Consensual

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the High Court formed a prima facie view that the relationship was consensual and was not shown, at that stage, to have been induced by a false assurance of marriage or cheating. The Court, however, made it clear that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the bail application. It directed that the trial court must independently assess the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions upon culmination of the trial.

Bail Granted With Condition Not To Contact Witnesses

The accused had remained in custody since May 15, and the chargesheet had already been filed. While granting bail, the High Court imposed the condition that the accused must not contact any prosecution witness, failing which appropriate action in accordance with law could follow.

The ruling reiterates the need for courts to distinguish between a genuinely consensual relationship that subsequently breaks down and a case where consent itself is alleged to have been procured through deception. The distinction, the Court indicated, is material to determining whether the factual foundation necessary for criminal liability is made out.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Aug 21, 2026 08:26 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).