Delhi High Court, in Naveen Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), has held that calling off a marriage after a period of courtship or interaction does not, by itself, amount to a “breach of promise” or a criminal offence of rape under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court emphasised that the purpose of courtship is to assess mutual compatibility, and withdrawing from a proposed marriage after realising incompatibility cannot be criminalised as a false promise to marry.
In granting bail to the petitioner, the Court reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” and highlighted that a genuine relationship that ends due to differences cannot be equated with deceit or inducement to sexual relations under the guise of marriage.
Background of the Case
The FIR and Allegations
The case arose from FIR No. 341/2025, registered at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.
The complainant alleged that she met the accused, Naveen Yadav, in April 2025 through the matrimonial website Shaadi.com. He represented himself as a well-settled professional working in Dubai and assured her that his family had consented to their marriage. The two remained in regular touch through phone and WhatsApp, developing a romantic relationship.
According to the complainant, during a meeting in Delhi in June 2025, the accused persuaded her to visit a hotel under the pretext of introducing her to his mother and sister. Inside the hotel room, he allegedly made physical advances. When she initially resisted, he assured her of marriage and a settled life in Dubai, following which she consented. The complainant further alleged that the accused took objectionable photographs of her and later demanded a flat worth ₹2–3 crores in Dubai, a luxury car, and cash before marriage.
Feeling cheated, she lodged a written complaint on 11 August 2025, and the accused was arrested the next day.
Arguments Presented
Applicant’s Submissions
The accused’s counsel contended that he was falsely implicated and that the allegations were fabricated and inconsistent. Key arguments included:
Contradictory Statements: The complainant, in a WhatsApp message, explicitly mentioned that no physical intimacy occurred in the hotel room, contradicting her FIR.
Genuine Relationship, Not Exploitation: The physical relationship, if any, was consensual and founded on a genuine intent to marry. Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 347), counsel argued that consensual intimacy in the course of a genuine relationship cannot amount to rape merely because the marriage does not materialise.
Employment Loss and Harassment: The accused was working in Dubai and, due to his sudden arrest, lost his job. His employer reported him to the UAE’s Ministry of Human Resources, leading to a three-year work ban. The counsel described this as a disproportionate consequence of a personal dispute.
Clean Record and Cooperation: The accused had no prior criminal record, had deep roots in society, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation without absconding.
No Need for Further Custody: The investigation was complete, the charge sheet was pending, and the trial would take considerable time. Continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.
Prosecution’s Submissions
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, citing:
Seriousness of Allegations: The case involved sexual exploitation and unlawful demands, which justified continued custody.
Apprehension of Tampering: The State contended that the accused might influence witnesses or flee abroad if released.
Prior Bail Denial: The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Rohini Courts, had already dismissed his regular bail plea on 16 September 2025.
Court’s Observations
Justice Arun Monga, after examining the record and submissions, found the case suitable for the grant of bail. The Court made several significant observations concerning false promises to marry, courtship, and criminal liability under Section 69 BNS.
1. Contradiction in Complainant’s Statements
The Court noted that the complainant herself had earlier stated in a WhatsApp message that no physical intimacy occurred, which contradicted the FIR allegations. Such inconsistencies, though not decisive at the bail stage, raised doubts about the prosecution’s version and were relevant for determining prima facie guilt.
2. Relationship Originated from Mutual Consent
The Court emphasised that the relationship between the parties began through mutual consent via a matrimonial platform, where both were exploring potential compatibility. Justice Monga observed:
“It seems to be an unfortunate case where two consenting adults entered into a relationship with the initial intention of exploring the possibility of marriage. However, after getting to know each other better, one party chose not to proceed with the alliance. This legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise.”
The Court underscored that the very purpose of courtship is to assess compatibility, and treating a change of mind as deceit would defeat its essence.
3. Failed Intention Does Not Equal False Promise
Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Prithvirajan v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 696), the Court reiterated that failure to marry despite a genuine initial intent does not amount to rape. The key test is whether the promise was false from the very inception. If it was genuine but later could not be fulfilled due to changed circumstances, the element of deception is absent.
The Court therefore held that calling off a marriage after courtship cannot automatically be equated with sexual exploitation or an offence under Section 69 BNS.
4. Dowry Demand Allegations Distinct from Sexual Offence
On the allegations of blackmail and dowry demand, the Court observed that even if the demands were assumed true, they constituted separate offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and did not attract Section 69 BNS.
Justice Monga further noted that Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are bailable, and in this case, there was no exchange of dowry—only alleged demands that were never fulfilled.
5. Unjust Consequences of Arrest
The Court took note of the accused’s loss of employment in Dubai, which resulted in a three-year work ban, calling it a severe collateral consequence of the prosecution. The Court observed that this hardship, coupled with prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of early trial conclusion, warranted the grant of bail.
6. Bail as a Rule, Jail as an Exception
Reiterating the settled law, the Court stated that continued detention before conviction serves no useful purpose when the accused has deep roots in society, poses no flight risk, and the trial is likely to take time. The Court concluded that the applicant’s presence during the trial could be secured through appropriate conditions.
The Court’s Ruling
Justice Arun Monga, after considering the totality of facts and circumstances, allowed the bail application.
Key Directions:
- The applicant, Naveen Yadav, was enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond and a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
- The Court directed that he shall not contact or influence the complainant or any witness, and must cooperate fully with the investigation.
- The observations made in the bail order are not to be construed as findings on merits, and the trial shall proceed independently.
Legal Analysis
1. The Concept of “False Promise to Marry” under Indian Criminal Law
Under Indian law, a sexual relationship induced by a false promise to marry may attract Section 69 BNS (equivalent to Section 376 IPC) if the prosecution proves that the accused never intended to marry and used the promise as a tool of deception.
However, mere breach of promise or failure to marry does not amount to rape. Courts must determine whether the intent to marry was dishonest from inception.
In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Supreme Court laid down the test:
“A false promise is one given at the inception of the relationship by a person who knows it to be false and does not intend to abide by it. A breach of promise that is subsequently unable to be fulfilled, for reasons outside the person’s control, is not a false promise.”
The Delhi High Court’s present ruling closely follows this principle.
2. Courtship and Autonomy in Modern Matrimonial Context
The Court’s reasoning acknowledges evolving social realities where relationships formed through matrimonial platforms involve a period of courtship before marriage. Such interactions are aimed at assessing mutual compatibility and not binding commitments.
By recognising this distinction, the judgment safeguards individual autonomy and the right to withdraw consent from marriage decisions without fear of criminal repercussions.
3. Protection Against Misuse of Criminal Law
The judgment also highlights concerns about the misuse of criminal provisions in failed relationships. The Court’s cautionary tone reinforces the need to prevent criminal law from becoming a weapon in personal disputes, particularly when both parties were adults acting consensually.
Justice Monga’s remark that the “legitimate exercise of choice has been misconstrued as a breach of promise” underscores the judiciary’s attempt to balance protection of women with safeguarding men from frivolous or retaliatory prosecutions.
4. Bail Jurisprudence and Pre-Trial Incarceration
The Court’s reliance on the principle that bail is the rule, jail the exception, aligns with Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing the applicant’s clean record, fixed residence, and cooperation, the Court deemed further custody unnecessary.
The reasoning follows precedents like Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, where the Supreme Court emphasised that pre-trial detention should not amount to punishment before conviction.
5. Separation of Offences under BNS and Dowry Law
The Court correctly distinguished between alleged offences under Section 69 BNS (sexual offence) and those under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It held that dowry demands, even if proven, do not convert a consensual relationship into sexual assault, as the latter requires proof of lack of consent or deceitful inducement at the time of the act.
Broader Implications
1. Defining the Boundaries of Criminal Liability in Relationships
This ruling contributes to the ongoing judicial discourse on sexual relationships and consent in the context of marriage promises. It strengthens the view that personal fallouts should not be criminalised unless there is clear evidence of deceit.
2. Reinforcing the Legitimacy of Courtship
By acknowledging courtship as a legitimate phase of relationship building, the judgment affirms that changing one’s mind about marriage after genuine interactions is not punishable. This sets an important precedent in cases involving online matrimonial interactions and modern dating culture.
3. Restoring Faith in Bail Jurisprudence
The decision reinforces humane bail principles, especially for working professionals facing disproportionate consequences like loss of employment or foreign work bans. It highlights that courts must balance individual liberty with the interests of justice, particularly when investigations are complete.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s decision in Naveen Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) is a nuanced and progressive interpretation of consent, courtship, and criminal liability. Justice Arun Monga’s observations resonate with the evolving social understanding of relationships in a digital age, where promises and expectations often evolve but cannot automatically be equated with deceit or coercion.
By granting bail, the Court not only reaffirmed the principle that liberty is the norm but also drew a clear line between a genuine relationship gone wrong and a relationship built on fraud. The ruling stands as a reminder that the criminal justice system must protect both the dignity of women and the fundamental rights of the accused through balanced, evidence-based adjudication.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams