Man Accused Of Rape Over Alleged False Promise Of Marriage; Supreme Court Grants Him Anticipatory Bail
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskNEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of establishing physical relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order dated 10 July 2026, which had rejected his plea for protection from arrest.
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the criminal appeal on 7 October 2026, considering that the police investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the accused had cooperated with the investigating authorities.
The case arose from FIR No. 97/2026, registered at Bhalswa Dairy Police Station, Delhi, under Sections 313, 376, 354C and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The complainant alleged that the accused had established a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The case also involved allegations concerning termination of pregnancy, although the Supreme Court did not examine these allegations in detail in its order.
After the Delhi High Court rejected his anticipatory bail application, the accused approached the Supreme Court through SLP (Criminal) No. 14603/2026, seeking protection from arrest.
On 14 August 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice and granted the accused interim protection from arrest, subject to his cooperation with the police investigation.
During the final hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the State, informed the Court that the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet had been submitted, and the accused had fully cooperated with the investigating authorities.
The Supreme Court recorded:
"Appellant had cooperated with the investigation."
Considering these developments, the Bench observed:
"That being the position, we set aside the order of the High Court dated 10.07.2026 and make our order dated 19.08.2026 absolute."
The Court concluded:
"Appeal is accordingly allowed."
Importantly, the Supreme Court did not declare the accused innocent or dismiss the criminal charges. Its decision was limited to granting continuing anticipatory bail protection after setting aside the Delhi High Court's earlier order.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Relevance In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 313, IPC | Causing miscarriage without the woman's consent. | Included in the FIR; the Supreme Court did not decide its merits. |
| Section 376, IPC | Punishment for rape. | Included among the offences alleged against the accused. |
| Section 354C, IPC | Punishment for voyeurism. | Mentioned in the FIR; no detailed findings recorded. |
| Section 34, IPC | Common intention involving multiple persons. | Invoked alongside the other IPC provisions. |
| Section 69, BNS, 2023 | Sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry without intention to fulfil it, where the act does not amount to rape. | Relevant to the alleged physical relationship on the pretext of marriage. |
| Section 482, BNSS, 2023 | Provides for anticipatory bail from the High Court or Sessions Court. | Relevant legal framework for pre-arrest protection; not expressly cited in the Supreme Court order. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Accused v. State of NCT of Delhi |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar |
| Decision Date | 7 October 2026 |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14603/2026 |
| Diary Number | 47699/2026 |
| High Court Case | Bail Application No. 1385/2026 |
| High Court Order | 10 July 2026 |
| FIR Details | FIR No. 97/2026, Bhalswa Dairy Police Station, Delhi |
| Appellant's Arguing Counsel | Advocate Abhimanyu Kumar |
| Appellant's AOR | Advocate Ashish Choudhury |
| Other Appellant Counsel | Tripaksha Litigation through R.D. Singh, Divya Tripathi, Prachi Grover, Abhishek Arora, Anand Kamal, Sulekha Agarwal, Siddhant Sehgal, Yash Saxena and Akriti Anand |
| State's Counsel | Additional Solicitor General Davinder Pal Singh |
| State's AOR | Dr. N. Visakamurthy |
| Other State Counsel | Vikash Shukla, Jyotika Sharma, Vivek Gurnani, Rajesh Kumar Singh and Vidhi Gupta |
| Final Decision | Appeal allowed; Delhi High Court order set aside; interim protection made absolute |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Supreme Court Protects Accused Man: The Court granted anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of physical relations on the pretext of marriage.
- Allegations Do Not Mean Guilt: A criminal accusation does not automatically justify arrest or establish guilt.
- Cooperation With Investigation Matters: The accused's cooperation played an important role in securing protection from arrest.
- Husbands And Men Have Legal Rights Too: The accused's personal liberty deserves judicial consideration, even in serious criminal cases.
- High Court's Bail Rejection Overturned: The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order after the investigation was completed and the chargesheet filed.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.