Rohit vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr,

Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J

CRL.M.A. 9604/2026 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 1228/2026

By way of the present application, the applicant seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 586/2025, registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter‘BNS’).

Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on 29.10.2025 on the complaint of the prosecutrix. As per the allegations, in the year 2023, the prosecutrix was working at a restaurant in  Rohini and during that period she  came  in  contact  with the  present  accused/applicant,  who  resides  in  Ashok  Vihar  and  used to visit the same gym. It is alleged that during the course of their friendship, the applicant proposed marriage to the prosecutrix and, on the promise of marrying her, established physical relations with her at her residence. It is further alleged that the applicant continued to maintain  physical  relations  with  the  prosecutrix  on  the  false  pretext of  marriage.  It  is  further  alleged  that  on  20.09.2025,  the  prosecutrix came to know that she was pregnant as a result of the said relationship and when she informed the applicant about the same, he advised her to abort the child. Thereafter, the pregnancy was terminated with the aid of certain medicines. It is also alleged that the last sexual relationship between them took place on 24.10.2025 on the false pretext of marriage. On 25.10.2025, the prosecutrix again discovered that she was pregnant and when she insisted that the applicant marry her, he refused to do so and informed her that he was already married.

After registration of the FIR on 29.10.2025, the prosecutrix was  medically examined  at  Dr.  BSA Hospital,  which confirmed  that she was pregnant. On 30.10.2025, she underwent medical termination of pregnancy at Dr. BSA Hospital. On 02.11.2025, the products of conception  were  handed  over  to  the  police,  which  have  been  sent  to FSL for examination. It is also stated that the applicant, despite service of notice under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023, has failed to join the investigation. His application seeking anticipatory bail was rejected on 19.11.2025; however, he still failed to join the investigation.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case  and that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual  in  nature.  It  is  contended  that  there  was  never  any  false promise of marriage and that the prosecutrix had entered into the physical relationship with the applicant with her free consent, she being a major at the relevant time. It is further argued that the prosecutrix was aware of the applicant’s relationship with one Zeenat Parveen and that he had children from the said relationship, and therefore there was no element of deception involved. It is also argued that the applicant is not legally married to Zeenat Parveen, as alleged by the prosecutrix, and that he is only in a live-in relationship with her, from which two children have been born. The learned counsel further submits that since the accused is not married to Zeenat Parveen, the promise of marriage allegedly made to the prosecutrix cannot be termed as a false promise of marriage.

On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the prosecutrix, as well as the prosecutrix who is present in person, opposes the present application. It is contended that the applicant had kept the prosecutrix in the dark regarding his relationship with Zeenat Parveen, from whom he has two children. It is argued that the prosecutrix had consented to the physical relationship under the impression that the applicant intended to marry her, which later turned out to be a false promise. It is further submitted that the conduct and intention of the applicant are also evident  from the  fact  that  he  has  two  children  from  Zeenat  Parveen, which fact was never disclosed to the prosecutrix. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the applicant and the State, has gone through the case file as well as the impugned bail rejection order passed by the learned Sessions Court.

In the present case, this Court takes note of the fact that the applicant herein had earlier been granted interim protection during the course of hearing of his anticipatory bail application  before the learned Sessions Court on 12.11.2025. At that stage, the applicant had argued that the prosecutrix herself was already married, and therefore the learned Sessions Court had directed the Investigating Officer  (I.O.)  to  verify the  factum as  to  whether the  prosecutrix  was indeed married to someone else.

Pursuant to the said direction, the I.O. conducted an inquiry and filed a report before the learned Sessions Court. The inquiry revealed  that  the  applicant  herein  has  two  children  from  one  Zeenat Parveen and that a marriage ceremony between him and Zeenat Parveen had been performed at his residence. The inquiry report further stated that Zeenat Parveen had repeatedly asked the applicant to register the marriage; however, the applicant had avoided doing so. The I.O. also informed the Court that Zeenat Parveen had been residing with the applicant in his house and that, although due to some  dispute she is presently  residing  in a separate  accommodation, the applicant continues to visit her.

The I.O. has also placed on record certain photographs showing the applicant along with Zeenat Parveen and his family members. The birth certificates of the two children born from the said relationship have also been placed on record, which mention the name of the present accused/applicant as the father. Additionally, photographs  of  certain  ceremonies  conducted  at  the  residence  of  the applicant have been placed on record, wherein the family members of the applicant can be seen giving their blessings to Zeenat Parveen on the occasion of the birth of the children.

Therefore, the learned APP for the State has contended that the applicant herein had made a false submission before the learned Sessions Court by stating that the prosecutrix was already married to someone else, which was found false, in order to mislead the Court.

In view of the aforesaid material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecutrix has levelled specific allegations that the applicant herein had induced her to enter into physical relations  on  the  false promise  of  marriage,  while  concealing the  fact that he was already in a marital relationship with Zeenat Parveen and had two children from the said relationship.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to certain WhatsApp chats and submitted that the prosecutrix was aware that the applicant was in a relationship with Zeenat Parveen. This Court has perused the WhatsApp chats to which reference was made. Though the name of Zeenat is mentioned in some  of the  chats, to  which the prosecutrix  also raises objections, it is nowhere reflected from the said conversations that the prosecutrix was aware that the accused was married to Zeenat Parveen or that he had two children from her, or that they were residing together. On the contrary, the investigation carried out in the present  case  reveals  that,  as  noted  hereinabove,  Zeenat  Parveen  had been residing with the applicant. Photographs collected during the course of investigation show the family members of the applicant giving their blessings to Zeenat Parveen during ceremonies conducted on the occasion of the birth of the children. The birth certificates of the two children born from the relationship between the applicant and Zeenat Parveen have also been placed on record, which mention the name of the applicant as the father. Therefore, even  from  the  WhatsApp  chats  relied  upon  by  the  applicant,  it  does not appear that the prosecutrix was aware of these material facts.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  applicant  has  also  argued  that  he was merely in a live-in relationship with Zeenat Parveen and that since he was not legally married to her, the promise of marriage allegedly  made  to  the  prosecutrix  could  not  be  termed  as  false.  This Court  does  not  find  merit  in  the  said  contention.  The  facts  noted  in the preceding paragraphs, coupled with the photographs placed on record and relied upon by the learned Sessions Court, prima facie indicate that the applicant and Zeenat Parveen were living together and that the family members of the applicant had accepted the relationship, as is evident from their presence and participation in ceremonies celebrating the birth of the children.

Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Court, the material placed on record prima facie indicates that the applicant herein had dishonest intention from the inception of his relationship with the prosecutrix with regard to the promise of marriage. The prosecutrix appears to have entered into the relationship with the applicant under a misconception of facts and on account of the promise of marriage extended by him.

This Court also notes that the applicant has not joined the investigation despite notice. The conduct of the applicant in attempting  to  mislead  the  Court,  coupled  with  his  failure  to  join  the investigation,  does  not  persuade  this  Court  to  exercise  its  discretion in favour of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.