NEW DELHI: <\/em>In an order dated 12 May 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Syed Zishan Ali Warsi<\/strong> of Patiala House Courts<\/strong>, Delhi, while dealing with a false promise of marriage case, granted bail to a man accused under Section 69 BNS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed that the matter-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPrima facie appears to be a case of consensual relationship between two matured and adult persons.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The case arose out of a relationship that began through Shaadi.com.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the FIR, the 36-year-old complainant came in contact with the accused in May 2025 <\/strong>after he sent her a matrimonial request on Shaadi.com. The two then started regular conversations on WhatsApp where they discussed family background, caste compatibility, marriage expectations and future plans<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complainant alleged that the accused, who claimed to be working in Prague after completing his PhD, made her believe that he intended to marry her<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution claimed that during a meeting at a hotel in Mahipalpur on 26 December 2025<\/strong>, the accused established physical relations with the complainant on the assurance of marriage. Later, when the accused allegedly blocked communication and married another woman<\/strong>, the complainant filed the FIR accusing him of sexual exploitation through a false promise of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the bail hearing, the defence argued that the complainant was a \u201c36 years and post-graduate\u201d<\/em><\/strong> woman who fully understood the nature of the relationship. The defence also relied upon her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS<\/strong>, where she admitted that there was-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo commitment of marriage but only daily communication\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And that the physical relationship had developed \u201cwith consent.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The prosecution opposed bail and argued that there were serious allegations against the accused and that the complainant\u2019s earlier statement may have been made under \u201cemotional stress.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer had never sought police custody<\/strong> of the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOn perusal of FIR, it is clear that there is only one instance of physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It also recorded that in her statement under Section 183 BNSS<\/strong>, the prosecutrix herself stated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe applicant has not made any commitment for marriage with the prosecutrix\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n And that she filed the complaint after learning about his marriage because she had become \u201cemotionally attached to the applicant.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While granting bail, the Court finally held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the applicant behind the bars for indefinite period\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Especially when no police custody had been sought during the investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Delhi Court ultimately granted regular bail<\/strong> to the accused subject to conditions, including surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, and a direction not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n