Delhi High Court Grants Bail in False Promise of Marriage Case
Court Emphasizes Consensual Relationships Based on Genuine Intent to Marry Do Not Constitute Rape
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Naveen Yadav, who was accused of exploiting a woman under the pretext of marriage and making subsequent dowry demands. The judgment, delivered by Justice Arun Monga, underscores the importance of consensual relationships based on genuine intent to marry, which later fail, not being equated with rape.
The case arose from an FIR lodged against Yadav, who allegedly promised marriage to a complainant he met through a matrimonial website. The complainant accused Yadav of making physical advances under the guise of marriage promises and later demanding dowry in the form of property and luxury items, which led to her lodging a complaint.
The court, while granting bail, noted that the complainant had admitted in a WhatsApp message that no physical intimacy occurred, which contradicted her allegations in the FIR. The judgment highlighted that consensual relationships where parties initially intend to explore marriage do not amount to rape if they subsequently fail due to intervening circumstances.
Justice Monga, referring to previous Supreme Court rulings, reiterated that a consensual relationship based on genuine intent to marry cannot be deemed rape merely because the marriage does not materialize. The judgment also pointed out that mere dowry demands, without actual exchange, do not attract severe penal provisions and are bailable offenses under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the court emphasized bail principles, stating that prolonged incarceration serves no useful purpose and causes undue hardship. The court acknowledged that bail primarily ensures the accused's presence during trial, and in this case, Yadav posed no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence given his clean antecedents and deep societal roots.
The court criticized the sudden arrest of Yadav, which led to his termination from employment in Dubai and a three-year work ban, despite him having been granted interim bail earlier. The judgment stressed that continued detention would not serve justice, especially as the trial is expected to be prolonged.
The court has allowed Yadav to be released on bail, subject to conditions ensuring his cooperation with the trial process. The judgment remarked that observations made during the bail hearing should not influence the trial's outcome.
This ruling marks an important precedent in cases involving allegations of false promise of marriage, as it clarifies the legal distinction between consensual courtship and criminal misconduct.
Bottom Line:
Bail application in a case involving alleged false promise of marriage and subsequent dowry demands - Court observed that consensual relationships based on genuine intent to marry, which subsequently fail, do not amount to rape - Bail granted considering the applicant's clean antecedents, lack of risk of absconding, and undue hardship caused by prolonged incarceration.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Sections 3 and 4
Naveen Yadav v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2788487
