Delhi Court Grants Bail in “False Promise to Marry” Case

The Court granted bail to the accused, Guneet Singh, in a case filed under Section 69 BNS, where allegations of a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage were made. The Court emphasized that long-term consensual relationships cannot automatically be equated with exploitation or deceit.

Brief Facts of the Case

• The complainant alleged that she entered into a relationship with Guneet Singh after he proposed marriage and assured her of commitment.
• Over 3.5 years, they maintained physical relations, went on vacations, and she was introduced to his family.
• Later, when marriage discussions broke down, she alleged he had only exploited her sexually under false promises.
• FIR was filed under Section 69 BNS, with additional charges including rape and sexual harassment.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 69 BNS – Sexual intercourse by deceitful means/false promise of marriage.
• Section 376 IPC – Rape.
• Section 354A IPC – Sexual harassment.
• Section 483 BNSS – Regular bail provision.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Accused)

• The relationship was consensual, lasting over 3.5 years.
• No case of rape is made out since both were consenting adults.
• Religious differences (Sikh & Muslim) were openly known, and marriage was always uncertain.
• False promise cannot be alleged after such a prolonged consensual relationship.

Arguments of the Respondent (State/Complainant)

• The complainant’s consent was obtained through deceitful promises of marriage.
• The accused and his family allegedly created a façade of acceptance, making her believe marriage was certain.
• The accused pressured her to withdraw complaints earlier, showing manipulation and control.
• Bail was opposed, citing the risk of tampering with evidence and intimidating the complainant.

Court’s Observations

• A relationship spanning over 3.5 years with repeated consensual intimacy cannot be termed as exploitation from the beginning.
• The complainant willingly continued the relationship despite knowing religious obstacles to marriage.
• Supreme Court and High Court precedents stress that not every breach of promise amounts to rape; intent at the outset must be dishonest.
• Concerns of tampering and flight risk can be addressed by strict bail conditions.

Comments from the author of this website

When I read cases like this, I see how fragile the position of men has become in modern relationships. Here was a relationship that went on for more than three years—full of trips, family introductions, and mutual intimacy. Both partners were adults, both knew the challenges of an interfaith marriage, and yet, when things didn’t end in marriage, the entire story was rewritten as “rape on false promise of marriage.”

To me, this is deeply unfair. How can years of consensual companionship suddenly be reframed as exploitation? It feels as though the man is criminalized simply for not turning a relationship into marriage. Relationships fail for countless reasons—compatibility, family pressure, personal differences—but for men, failure often turns into a legal trap.

What troubles me further is the way the law is used like a weapon. Instead of accepting the end of a relationship, the man is dragged into criminal proceedings that can ruin his career, his reputation, and his family’s peace. These cases blur the line between genuine exploitation and ordinary heartbreak, reducing the seriousness of real crimes while placing an unbearable burden on men who may have done nothing wrong other than deciding not to marry.

In my view, consent in a long-term relationship should be respected for what it was—mutual, willing, and adult. It cannot be rewritten later as forced or deceitful just because the relationship didn’t lead to marriage. Until courts consistently uphold this distinction, every young man will carry the fear that a breakup could one day destroy his life through false criminal charges.

Final Thoughts

This judgment is a reminder that men deserve fairness in matters of relationships, too. Courts must protect against genuine cases of coercion, but they must also shield men from being punished for emotional decisions that did not work out. A broken promise of marriage is not the same as a crime, and it should never be treated as one.

Justice should not make men live under the constant fear that saying “no” to marriage could be equated with rape. Heartbreak belongs to the realm of emotions, not to criminal law. Until this truth is recognised, men will remain vulnerable to misuse of laws that were meant to protect, not persecute.

Read Complete Judgement Here