Delhi Court grants bail in Gen Z rape on promise of marriage case, noting long-term consensual relationship under Section 69 BNS, rejecting mere situationship claim.
Case in NewsNot a situationship Delhi Court grants bail in rape case over false promise of marriage . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: State vs. XXX Guneet Singh, Saket Court, Delhi
The case before Saket Court involved a Sikh-Muslim couple in a relationship since 2021 . Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi dealt with allegations of rape on promise of marriage under Section 69 BNS . The complainant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the accused, a Sikh man, established intimacy on a false assurance of marriage, forced unnatural sex, and recorded private acts without consent .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
The Court carefully examined the factual matrix before deciding on bail . It considered the nature of the couple’s relationship, the allegations of deceit and the defence’s arguments of consensual intimacy . Some of the crucial aspects highlighted were :
- Couple maintained a 3.5-year-long relationship with continued intimacy and vacations together .
- Complainant alleged she was treated as a “sex slave” after finding the accused chatting with other women .
- Defence argued the complainant was educated, progressive and entered into the relationship willingly .
- Prosecution raised concerns of tampering with evidence invoking Section 376 IPC for rape .
Legal Insights
The Court also addressed the legal provisions applicable and their interpretation. It emphasised precedents and statutory safeguards while balancing the rights of both parties .
- Section 69 BNS – sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage, basis of FIR .
- Section 376 IPC – prosecution additionally invoked offence of rape.
- Reliance placed on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings that consensual long-term relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalised unless deceit existed at inception .
- Considered religious differences (Islam-Sikhism) as known barriers, not concealed factors.
Court’s Verdict
The Delhi Court held it was not a “situationship” but a genuine long-term association between Gen Z consenting adults. With no criminal antecedents and ongoing consent despite disputes, the Court granted bail on a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties .
Source – South District Court,New Delhi
Read also – BNS
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
