Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Alleged Rape Case

Court Finds Relationship Consensual; No Evidence of False Promise of Marriage

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on October 31, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to Sumit, accused of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, following allegations that he misled the complainant with a false promise of marriage. Justice Ravinder Dudeja concluded that the evidence pointed to a consensual relationship between Sumit and the complainant, rather than deceit or coercion. 

The complaint against Sumit, filed on September 11, 2025, alleged that he had sexually exploited the complainant for two years under the pretense of marriage. The complainant claimed that Sumit initiated the relationship in August 2023 and subsequently engaged in physical intimacy on several occasions, promising marriage, which he later refused. The complainant eventually filed an FIR after an aborted court marriage attempt.

Sumit's defense team, led by Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, argued that the relationship was consensual, citing WhatsApp conversations that demonstrated mutual affection and voluntary participation in physical intimacy. They contended that the complainant's insistence on marriage and threats of self-harm suggested coercion rather than deception by Sumit. The defense further argued that Sumit had no criminal antecedents, was the sole breadwinner of his family, and posed no flight risk.

Opposing the bail application, the State's counsel argued that the allegations were grave, noting the complainant's statement which suggested her consent was obtained under false assurances of marriage. They asserted the necessity of custodial interrogation to further investigate the case.

In analyzing the case, Justice Dudeja emphasized the distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise, noting that the latter involves deceit from the outset. The court found no evidence that Sumit had intended to deceive the complainant from the beginning of their relationship. Instead, the relationship appeared consensual and had deteriorated over time.

Justice Dudeja referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which highlight that not every unfulfilled promise to marry constitutes a false promise. The court underscored that criminal law should not be weaponized as a tool of coercion when a consensual relationship turns sour.

Ultimately, the court granted anticipatory bail, setting conditions to ensure Sumit's cooperation with the investigation and prevent any influence on witnesses. Sumit is required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and must comply with several stipulations, including maintaining communication with the investigating officer and refraining from contacting the complainant or tampering with evidence.

The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and should not be interpreted as prejudicing the case's merits.

Bottom Line:

Anticipatory bail granted in a case of alleged rape under Section 376 IPC, considering the consensual nature of the relationship and lack of evidence to establish false promise of marriage.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376; Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 183

Sumit v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2803467