Concealment of Prior Marriage Equals Misconception of Fact: Delhi HC Denies Bail

The Delhi High Court, in Rohit v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2026) examined the crucial issue of consent obtained under a false promise of marriage within the framework of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court clarified that concealment of an existing marital relationship and children vitiates consent, rendering it a misconception of fact, and refused anticipatory bail to the accused.

This judgment reinforces the evolving jurisprudence on sexual consent, deception, and criminal liability, particularly in cases involving false promises of marriage. 

Facts of the Case

The present case arose from FIR No. 586/2025 registered at Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi, based on a complaint filed by the prosecutrix.

The prosecutrix alleged that she met the accused in 2023 while working at a restaurant in Rohini. The accused, who frequented the same gym, gradually developed a friendship with her. Over time, the accused proposed marriage and assured her that he intended to marry her. Relying on this assurance, the prosecutrix entered into a physical relationship with him.

According to the complaint, the accused continued to maintain physical relations with her over a period of time on the same promise. In September 2025, the prosecutrix discovered that she was pregnant. Upon informing the accused, he allegedly advised her to terminate the pregnancy, and she did so through medication.

The prosecutrix further alleged that the accused continued the relationship under the pretext of marriage and that their last physical interaction occurred on 24 October 2025. Soon thereafter, she again found herself pregnant. When she insisted on marriage, the accused refused and disclosed that he was already involved with another woman and had children.

This revelation came as a shock to the prosecutrix, who claimed that she had been completely unaware of these facts. Consequently, she filed a complaint leading to the registration of the FIR under Section 69 BNS.

Medical examination conducted at Dr. BSA Hospital confirmed the pregnancy and subsequent termination. Additionally, biological samples were collected and sent for forensic examination.

The investigation further revealed that the accused had been in a long-standing relationship with one Zeenat Parveen, with whom he had two children. Evidence in the form of photographs, birth certificates, and witness statements indicated that the accused and Zeenat Parveen had participated in ceremonies together and were recognised as a family unit.

Despite being served notice under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the accused failed to join the investigation. His anticipatory bail application was earlier rejected by the Sessions Court, yet he continued to evade participation in the investigation.

Issue

• Whether consent based on a false promise of marriage, coupled with concealment of prior marriage and children, amounts to a misconception of fact

Judgment of the Court

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, rejected the anticipatory bail application.

The Court observed that the material placed on record prima facie indicated that the accused had induced the prosecutrix into a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage, while concealing crucial facts about his existing relationship and children.

The Court carefully examined the evidence, including:

• Photographs showing the accused with Zeenat Parveen and their children;
• Birth certificates naming the accused as the father;
• Evidence of ceremonies attended by family members; and
• WhatsApp chats relied upon by the defence.

The Court held that the WhatsApp chats did not establish that the prosecutrix was aware of the accused’s marital status or the existence of children. Mere reference to the name of another woman was insufficient to prove informed consent.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of a legally registered marriage negated deception. It held that the substance of the relationship, rather than its formal legal status, was relevant in determining whether the accused had misled the prosecutrix.

Further, the Court noted that the accused had failed to join the investigation despite notice and had attempted to mislead the Sessions Court by making false claims about the prosecutrix’s marital status.

Key Highlights of the Delhi High Court Decision

"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."

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision marks an important development in the law relating to false promises of marriage and sexual consent. By holding that concealment of a prior marital relationship and children constitutes a misconception of fact, the Court has reinforced the principle that consent must be informed, voluntary, and free from deception.

The ruling sends a strong message that individuals cannot evade criminal liability by disguising deception as a consensual relationship. It also clarifies that courts will closely scrutinise the intention of the accused and the surrounding circumstances to determine whether consent was genuinely given.

Equally significant is the Court’s approach to anticipatory bail, where it emphasised that dishonest conduct, non-cooperation with investigation, and attempts to mislead the judiciary will weigh heavily against the accused.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams