A Delhi court has granted anticipatory bail to Parammeet Singh in a case registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage, holding that the allegations prima facie indicated a failed relationship, rather than criminal sexual exploitation.
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi observed that the criminal justice system must not be used to convert broken relationships or cancelled engagements into serious criminal prosecutions—particularly in the absence of clear evidence that consent was vitiated by deception from the very outset.
The case arises from an FIR registered at the Malviya Nagar Police Station on November 10, 2025, based on a complaint by a woman who alleged that the accused established physical relations with her based on a false assurance of marriage and later called off their wedding just days before the scheduled ceremony.
Engagement, fallout, and allegations
According to the prosecution, the parties entered into a matrimonial alliance through a Gurudwara, following which a roka (pre-engagement) ceremony was held on May 10, 2025, at the complainant’s residence in Malviya Nagar. Gifts and customary articles were exchanged, and the wedding date was fixed for October 24, 2025.
The complainant alleged that soon after the roka, the conduct of the accused and his family changed, with unreasonable demands relating to wedding arrangements and venue.
She further claimed that the accused established physical relations with her on June 6, 2025, in his car, on the assurance that they were soon to be married.
The relationship allegedly deteriorated over the following months amid disputes and alleged dowry-related demands.
The wedding was eventually called off on October 18, 2025—three days before the scheduled ceremonies—which, according to the complainant, caused immense emotional distress, social humiliation, and financial loss running into several lakhs.
She further accused the applicant of threatening to circulate private photographs if she disclosed his conduct, and offences under the Information Technology Act and the Dowry Prohibition Act were also subsequently added during investigation.
Court’s assessment: Consent, delay, and conduct
While considering the anticipatory bail application, the court undertook a detailed examination of the factual sequence and the legal threshold under Section 69 BNS, a relatively new provision introduced in 2023.
The court noted that both parties were educated adults and that their relationship had progressed openly: with family involvement, a formal engagement, and a fixed wedding date.
Crucially, the court also observed that despite alleging a drastic change in the accused’s behaviour after the roka, the complainant continued the relationship, including physical intimacy. The judge also flagged this unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. Although the wedding was called off on October 18, the FIR was registered only on November 10, with no prior complaint alleging sexual exploitation or coercion.
Further, during the hearing, it emerged that the complainant had deleted her chat conversations with the accused and had not handed over her mobile phone to the investigating agency, even as the accused had joined the investigation and surrendered his phone and car, both of which were seized by the police.
In that regard, the investigating officer informed the court that custodial interrogation of the applicant was no longer required.
Turning to Supreme Court precedents
Turning to multiple Supreme Court judgements, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra and Prashant v State (NCT of Delhi), the court reiterated the settled legal position that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute an offence, unless it is shown that the promise was false from the start, and was the sole basis for consent.
The court also cited recent observations of the Supreme Court, cautioning against the growing tendency to give failed relationships a “colour of criminality”, stressing that rape laws must be invoked only in cases involving genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent.
“Conversion of every sour relationship into an offence of rape trivialises the seriousness of the offence and inflicts indelible stigma on the accused,” the court noted, echoing the apex court’s concerns over misuse of criminal law.
Bail granted with strict conditions
Allowing the anticipatory bail plea, the court ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with a fixed deposit receipt of an equivalent amount.
The court imposed stringent conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, surrender of travel documents, restriction on leaving the country without permission, and a complete bar on contacting or influencing the complainant or witnesses.
The order underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in navigating the delicate line between protecting women from sexual exploitation and preventing the criminal justice system from being weaponised in disputes arising from broken engagements and failed relationships.