A Delhi court recently granted bail to a Sikh man accused of rape under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 69, over allegations of sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage. The Court observed that the prolonged relationship of more than three and a half years between the accused and the complainant — both belonging to the Gen Z generation — was sufficient to conclude that there was no deceit or coercion involved.
This judgment highlights the judicial balancing act between protecting women from exploitation and preventing the misuse of rape laws in consensual relationships that later turn sour.
Background of the Case
The case involved a Sikh-Muslim couple who had been in a romantic relationship since 2021. The complainant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the accused:
- Developed intimacy with her on the assurance of marriage.
- Introduced her to his family and took her on multiple trips.
- Forced unnatural sex and recorded intimate acts without consent.
- Treated her like a “sex slave.”
She also claimed that before lodging the FIR, she discovered the accused “chatting with strange girls and liking their pictures.”
The accused, however, denied these allegations. His counsel argued that the complainant was an educated, progressive woman who willingly entered into a consensual relationship. According to the defense, the case was filed after the breakup, and the allegations were false and motivated.
The prosecution opposed bail, citing the risk of evidence tampering. It also pointed out that the mobile phones of both parties had been seized and sent for forensic analysis. Importantly, the prosecution highlighted that Section 376 (rape) had also been invoked in the FIR.
Court’s Observations
The matter came up before Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi at the Saket Court, who granted bail to the accused with certain conditions.
The Court made several significant observations:
- Not a “situationship” but a relationship
- The judge referred to modern slang used by Gen Z and clarified that this was not a casual “situationship.”
- Instead, the couple had been in a serious relationship lasting over three and a half years, marked by continued intimacy.
- Consensual intimacy cannot be criminalised retrospectively
- The Court relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents, which held that long-term consensual relationships cannot be labelled as rape unless the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning.
- Religious differences as a hurdle
- The Court noted that the interfaith nature of the relationship — between a Sikh man and a Muslim woman — created foreseeable obstacles to marriage.
- Despite arguments over marriage, the complainant continued to visit the accused, stay with him, go on vacations, and share hotel stays, suggesting ongoing consent.
- No criminal antecedents
- The accused had no prior criminal record, which weighed in favour of granting bail.
- Prosecution concerns can be addressed by conditions
- The Court assured that the risk of tampering with evidence could be managed by imposing stringent bail conditions.
The Defence’s Argument
Advocate Kushal Kumar, representing the accused, argued that the case was a clear misuse of rape provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He submitted that:
- The complainant, being a “jilted lover,” filed a false case out of spite.
- Rape charges in such consensual relationships are an abuse of criminal law.
- The allegations were “utter falsehood” and “preposterous.”
The accused was represented by Erudite Legal, led by partner Kushal Kumar, along with Advocates Akashdeep Gupta, Suryansh Gaur, and Rishabh Saxena.
Legal Principles Involved
The case touches upon the broader debate in Indian criminal law regarding false promise of marriage as rape. Courts have repeatedly grappled with distinguishing between genuine breach of promise and cases where the promise was false from inception.
- Section 69, BNS (equivalent to Section 375 IPC earlier)
- Defines rape and includes sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage if the promise was made without intent to fulfill it.
- Supreme Court Precedents
- In Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Court held that a false promise of marriage amounts to rape only if the promise was never intended to be fulfilled.
- In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court distinguished between mere breach of promise and false promise. If the accused genuinely intended to marry but later could not due to unforeseen circumstances, it does not constitute rape.
- Delhi High Court Precedents
- The Delhi High Court has similarly held that prolonged consensual relationships with active intimacy cannot be retrospectively criminalised unless deceit is proven from the very start.
The Court’s Reliance on Gen Z Terminology
Interestingly, the judge acknowledged Gen Z relationship slang like “situationship,” making the ruling more relatable to modern social realities. The Court highlighted that both parties were Gen Z adults, aware of their choices, and capable of consenting to physical intimacy.
This observation reflects the judiciary’s evolving understanding of contemporary relationship dynamics and its effort to separate casual relationships from allegations of rape based on broken promises.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
- Prevention of Misuse of Rape Laws
- The judgment reinforces that criminal law should not be misused to settle scores after breakups in consensual relationships.
- Consent in Long-Term Relationships
- Courts will continue to scrutinize the intent behind promises of marriage, ensuring that only genuine cases of deceit are prosecuted.
- Interfaith Relationships and Social Hurdles
- The Court recognized that interfaith marriages often face family and social opposition. Awareness of such hurdles reduces the strength of claims based on false promises of marriage.
- Judicial Adaptation to Social Change
- By referencing modern terms like “situationship,” the judiciary signals its adaptability to evolving social and cultural contexts.
Conclusion
The Delhi court’s decision in State vs Guneet Singh highlights the fine line between protecting women from exploitation and ensuring that consensual relationships are not retrospectively criminalised as rape. By granting bail, the Court emphasized that a three-and-a-half-year-long relationship marked by intimacy cannot be simplistically reduced to allegations of deceit.
While acknowledging the complainant’s allegations, the Court underscored the importance of intent, consent, and continuity of the relationship. This ruling contributes to the ongoing discourse on the misuse of rape laws, interfaith relationships, and the complexities of modern Gen Z dating culture.
As Indian courts continue to confront such cases, this judgment may serve as an important precedent in distinguishing between genuine exploitation and consensual relationships that break down due to personal or social reasons.
Also Read
Kerala High Court Clarifies: Muslim Law Permits Polygamy Only If All Wives Can Be Maintained Equally
