New Delhi: The Patiala House Courts in New Delhi granted bail to a PhD holder working abroad in a case involving allegations of rape on the pretext of a false promise to marry, observing that the relationship appeared to be consensual between two mature adults. The accused was represented by Advocate Vineet Jindal.
Additional Sessions Judge Syed Zishan Ali Warsi, presiding over the matter, released the accused, Arun Kumar, on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, noting that no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody indefinitely.
The case (FIR No. 256/2026, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) stems from a complaint filed on May 2, 2026, by a 36-year-old woman against Arun Kumar, alleging sexual exploitation through deceitful promises of marriage, cheating, and related offenses under the newly enacted criminal code.
According to the FIR, the complainant and accused met through the matrimonial platform Shaadi.com in May 2025. The woman alleged that Kumar, who represented himself as a sincere PhD holder working in Prague, deliberately misrepresented his intention to marry her. She claimed he induced her into a sexual relationship on December 26, 2025, at OPO Hotel Vertu in Mahipalpur, Delhi, while promising marriage.
The complainant stated that Kumar maintained regular communication through WhatsApp, discussing marriage plans, family compatibility, and future expectations. However, in April 2026, he abruptly severed all communication, blocked her, and instructed her not to contact him. She later discovered through Instagram that Kumar had already married another woman, and that his April 2026 visit to India was for solemnizing his marriage — a fact he had allegedly concealed while continuing the relationship with her.
Advocate Vineet Jindal, appearing for the accused along with Ms. Urvashi, argued that this was the first bail application filed by Kumar. He emphasized that the complainant, being a 36-year-old post-graduate professional, was fully aware of the nature of their relationship.
The defense counsel pointed out that in her statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the complainant herself stated there was no promise of marriage, but only regular communication and a consensual physical relationship.
“The FIR was registered five months after the alleged incident, with an apparent afterthought motive to extort the applicant as he started his married life,” Jindal submitted. He further argued that Kumar’s life and family had been destroyed due to what he termed the “revengeful conduct of the prosecutrix.”
The defense also highlighted that the relationship initially developed without any promise of marriage and was between two consenting adults. To avoid flight risk, Kumar offered to surrender his passport before the concerned trial court.
Additional Public Prosecutor Sh. Shiv Kumar vehemently opposed the bail application on behalf of the State, contending that there were serious allegations against the accused. He argued that the complaint was initially registered based on the complainant’s statement and later corroborated through medico-legal examination.
The prosecution maintained that the complainant’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS may have been given under emotional stress and that the investigation was still at an initial stage. The State counsel expressed concerns that if released on bail, Kumar might threaten witnesses and tamper with evidence.
After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the case records, Additional Sessions Judge Syed Zishan Ali Warsi made several significant observations:
On the Nature of the Relationship:
The court noted that according to the FIR itself, there was only one instance of a physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix. In April 2026, the accused severed all communication and blocked her.
On Consent and Awareness:
Crucially, the court observed that in her Section 183 BNSS statement before the JMFC, the prosecutrix explicitly stated that there was no commitment of marriage, but only regular communication between them, and that their physical relationship developed consensually.
On Promise to Marry:
The court further noted that the prosecutrix stated in her judicial statement that the applicant had not made any commitment to marry her and that she came to know about his marriage through social media, which prompted her to file the complaint as she was emotionally attached to him.
Prima Facie Assessment:
“Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as statement of the prosecution, prima facie it appears to be a case of consensual relationship between two matured and adult persons,” the judge observed.
Investigation Stage and Custody:
The court noted that no police custody had been sought by the investigating officer till date, and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind bars for an indefinite period.
While granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions on Arun Kumar.
This case highlights the complex legal terrain surrounding allegations of rape based on a “false promise to marry” under Indian criminal law. The newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code in 2023, continues to recognize such offenses, but courts have consistently held that not every failed relationship or broken promise constitutes rape.
The Supreme Court has previously observed in several judgments that a mere breach of promise cannot be considered rape unless there was no intention to marry from the beginning and the promise was made solely to engage in sexual relations.
Legal experts note that the prosecutrix’s own statement under Section 183 BNSS, where she admitted there was no promise of marriage and that the relationship was consensual, significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. Such statements made before a judicial magistrate carry considerable evidentiary weight.
Cases involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage have seen a significant rise in Indian courts over the past decade. While genuine cases of exploitation deserve stringent punishment, concerns have also been raised about the alleged misuse of such provisions following relationship breakdowns.
Courts have attempted to draw a fine line between consensual relationships that do not culminate in marriage and actual cases of sexual exploitation through deliberate deception.
The present case underscores the importance of examining the complainant’s own statements, the nature of the relationship, and whether there was genuine deception from the outset or merely a relationship that later ended.
The defense argued that Arun Kumar, who holds a PhD and works professionally in Prague, has seen his life and reputation significantly impacted by these allegations. The case was registered shortly after he married another woman in April 2026, raising questions about the timing and motivation behind the complaint.
The matter will now proceed to trial, where the prosecution will need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was a false promise to marry from the very beginning, rather than a consensual relationship between adults that subsequently ended.
The next hearing in the case has not yet been scheduled. Both parties have been provided copies of the bail order.
Case Details:
- Case No.: Bail Application No. 1063/2026
- Case Title: State of Delhi v. Arun Kumar
- FIR No.: 256/2026
- Police Station: Vasant Kunj South
- Court: Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
- Judge: Additional Sessions Judge-04 Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
- Date: May 12, 2026
- Offense: Section 69 BNS (rape on pretext of marriage)
- Defense Counsel: Adv. Vineet Jindal and Ms. Urvashi
- Prosecution: Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Shiv Kumar
![Delhi Court Grants Permission to Evict AAP MP Raghav Chadha from Type 7 Government Bungalow [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2023/10/lj_2396_AAP_MP_Raghav_Chadha_to_lose_govt_bungalow.jpg)
