Delhi High Court – Orders
Kunal Dhingra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 August, 2025
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025
KUNAL DHINGRA .....Applicant
Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP
for the State.
SI Pinki Jakhar, PS Lajpat
Nagar along with victim
and her mother.
Mr. R.S. Kundu & Mr.
V.K. Gupta, Advs. for
complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 11.08.2025
1. The present application is filed seeking pre-arrest bail in
FIR No. 235/2025 dated 26.05.2025, registered at Police Station
Lajpat Nagar, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
2. The FIR was registered on an allegation that the applicant
had established sexual relations with the victim on the false
promise of marriage. It is alleged that the applicant and the
prosecutrix used to study in the same school. After befriending
each other, the applicant asked the prosecutrix to marry him on
02.03.2021. On the refusal of the prosecutrix, the applicant
insisted that he loved the prosecutrix and established physical
relations with her on multiple occasions on the pretext of
marriage. Allegedly, the family members of the applicant and the
BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 1 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
prosecutrix also finalised the marriage between the parties,
however, the applicant subsequently refused to marry the
prosecutrix. It is alleged that the applicant also threatened to
circulate the intimate photos and videos of the prosecutrix on
social media.
3. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the relationship
between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual in
nature. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was aware that the
family members of the applicant were opposed to their marriage,
despite which, she continued to engage in sexual relations with
the applicant over the long duration of their relationship.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
the counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the
applicant on account of the gravity of the alleged offences.
5. I have heard the counsel and perused the record.
6. While determining the parameters in granting pre-arrest
bail, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694 held as
under:
“112. …….
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly comprehended before
arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment
on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat
similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the
object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arrestingBAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 2 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very
large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material
against the accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case.
The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court
should consider with even greater care and caution because
over implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely,
no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full
investigation and there should be prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of
tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.”
7. False allegations of sexual misconduct and coercion not
only tarnish the reputation of the accused but also undermine the
credibility of genuine cases. Hence, it is imperative for the Court
to exercise utmost diligence in evaluating the prima facie
allegations against the accused in each case, especially when
issues of consent and intent are contentious.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant
established sexual relations with the prosecutrix on the false
pretext of marriage, and subsequently, he refused to marry her.
9. It is pertinent to note that the complaint was given to
police on 26.05.2025, even though, according to the prosecutrix,
BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 3 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
she met the applicant on 21.03.2025, when they established
sexual relations for the last time. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the
case of Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. : (1994) 5 SCC
188, held as under:
“12. …Delay in lodging the FIR often results in
embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On
account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story…”
10. While the credibility of any explanation for the delay will
be seen during the course of the trial, however, the same casts a
doubt as to the veracity of the case.
11. Moreover, it is important to note that it is a complainant’s
case herself that the applicant had told her that his family is not
happy with the relationship and he cannot go against their
wishes. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : (2019) 9 SCC 608, has
summarised the legal position when a woman complains of
sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage. It was held as
under:
“18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the
above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to
Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation
towards the proposed act. To establish whether the
“consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising
out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be
established. The promise of marriage must have been a false
promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being
adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself
must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the
woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.”
12. It is to be seen whether the person who has made the
promise to marry was dishonest from the beginning and had no
intention of upholding his word even at the time of making such
BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 4 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
a promise. Mere breach of a promise to marry at a belated stage
after significant time has elapsed cannot be termed as a false
promise.
13. In the present case, the parties were admittedly in a
relationship for close to four years and even as per the complaint,
the applicant had met the family of the victim for the purpose of
marriage. As per the allegations, the parties also had a ceremony
in the presence of the family members in regard to the wedding
way back on 11.02.2024.
14. Marriage not taking place after the arrangements are made
in some circumstances is stigmatic, specially for women. The
same, however, cannot be called intentional since some amount
of stigma is also involved for the family of the man.
15. Whether the consent of the prosecutrix was vitiated by
misconception of fact arising out of promise to marry cannot be
established at this stage, and the same would be a matter of trial.
16. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was granted interim
protection by this Court by order dated 20.06.2025, subject to
him furnishing an undertaking that he will not misuse any
intimate photos or videos of the prosecutrix. The applicant was
also directed to cooperate with the investigation and to surrender
any of the videos or images of the prosecutrix in his possession.
It is stated that the applicant has since joined the investigation.
17. It is not in doubt that an order for grant of pre-arrest bail
cannot be passed in a routine manner so as to allow the accused
to use the same as a shield. At the same time, it cannot be denied
that great amount of humiliation and disgrace is attached with the
arrest. In cases where the accused has joined investigation, he is
BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 5 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
cooperating with the Investigating Agency and is not likely to
abscond, the custodial interrogation should be avoided.
18. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to allay any
apprehensions of the applicant misusing the liberty or tampering
with evidence.
19. In view of the above, in the event of arrest, the applicant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a
sum of ₹20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount subject to
the satisfaction of the concerned SHO, on the following
conditions:
a. The applicant shall join and cooperate with the
investigation, if required, as and when directed by the IO;
b. The applicant shall not contact the prosecutrix or her
family member and he shall not misuse the intimate photos
or videos of the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever ;
c. The applicant shall not leave the country without the
prior permission of the learned Trial Court;
d. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the
evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
e. The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial
Court as and when directed;
f. The applicant shall provide the address where he
would be residing and shall not change the address without
informing the concerned IO/SHO;
g. The applicant shall give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phoneBAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 6 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
switched on at all times.
20. In the event of there being any violation of the stipulated
conditions, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of the bail.
21. It is clarified that the observations made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application,
and should not influence the outcome of the Trial and should not
be taken, as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case.
The present bail application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
AUGUST 11, 2025
“SK”
BAIL APPLN. 2229/2025 Page 7 of 7
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 22:35:28
[ad_1]
Source link