Delhi court's bail ruling in 'promise-to-marry' case sparks debate on Gen Z relationships

 A Delhi court has granted bail to Guneet Singh, accused of duping his partner with promises of marriage over the course of a long relationship. The case has drawn public attention to the murky intersection of love, lies, and legal accountability.

The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi at Saket Court, highlights how modern relationships are increasingly finding their way into courtrooms.

According to the FIR filed in Sangam Vihar police station, the complainant, a young working woman, met Guneet in 2021 at their workplace. Their friendship soon turned into romance. She said Guneet proposed to her with flowers and gifts, introduced her to his family, and repeatedly assured her that marriage was certain. His family too, she claimed, welcomed her as their future daughter-in-law, even giving her shagun and taking her along on vacations.

Believing this, she said, she entered into physical intimacy with him. But over time, she alleged, his behaviour changed. She accused him of meeting her only for sex, forcing her to watch pornography, and filming her without consent.

By mid-2025, the relationship had collapsed. She alleged Guneet blocked her calls and on social media, while his family stopped responding. On July 27, she claimed, he forced her into unnatural sex at a Delhi hotel and recorded it on his phone. Feeling “deceived and exploited,” she went to the police.

The case was registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sex obtained through deceitful means or false promises of marriage. Later, police also added charges under Section 376 (rape) and 354A (sexual harassment). Guneet was arrested soon after.

In court, Guneet’s lawyer argued that the relationship was consensual and lasted over three years, pointing out that both were educated professionals who chose to be together. “Mere failure to marry does not make it a case of rape,” the lawyer said. He also suggested that religious differences, she being Muslim and he being Sikh, caused the rift, not deception.

The prosecution and the complainant’s lawyer opposed bail. They argued that Guneet had never intended to marry her, that his family had helped maintain the false illusion of marriage, and that he had exerted pressure on her to withdraw her complaint.

The prosecution also told the court that crucial evidence, including mobile phones and hotel records, had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. They warned Guneet might tamper with evidence or threaten the complainant if released.

After hearing both sides, ASJ granted bail but imposed strict conditions. The order noted that the couple had been in a long-term relationship for over three years, regularly meeting, travelling and staying together. The court noted this showed ongoing consent, and not a one-time deception.

The judge also pointed out that both were “Gen Z consenting adults,” reflecting how young people today often engage in serious relationships outside marriage. The order observed differences over religion and family's approval seemed to have played a role in the breakup.

However, the court cautioned that bail did not mean the charges were dismissed. The case will continue to trial, where evidence will be weighed.

Guneet was ordered to furnish a Rs 1 lakh bond, appear before the trial court whenever called, not leave the country without permission, and not contact or threaten the complainant.

This Delhi case also shows the cultural tensions faced by Gen Z. For many, relationships are more open and flexible than in the past. But when they break down, expectations of marriage and family approval still loom large. Courts are left to decide whether the promise of marriage was genuine or a lie from the start.