Delhi Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Exploiting Woman on False Promise of Marriage

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vaibhav Singh of Saket Court passed the order in an Bail Application arising from an FIR registered at Amar Colony Police Station under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that she came into contact with the accused through Facebook in 2021, and the two maintained online friendship for nearly three years before meeting in person in May 2024. Their relationship deepened, and Gupta allegedly proposed marriage despite being told that the complainant was a single mother with a 14-year-old daughter.

The complainant claimed that between September 2024 and April 2025, Gupta took her to several places outside Delhi, during which she consented to sexual relations on his repeated assurance of marriage. However, on May 27, 2025, he allegedly refused to marry her, citing differences in community background. She further alleged that Gupta possessed fake identity proof related to her and had threatened to harm her.

Counsel for the accused denied that any promise of marriage was ever made and argued that the relationship was purely consensual. The defence submitted that the complainant had concealed her subsisting marriage with one Sanjeev Bhatia, with whom she had a daughter in 2011. It was further alleged that the complainant manipulated her identity documents, having changed her Aadhaar details multiple times with different names and addresses.

The defence pointed out that:

-The complainant’s Aadhaar records initially showed her as “R Bhatia, wife of Sanjeev Bhatia” at different addresses in Delhi.

-In a 2025 update, she changed her name to “R Pathak, daughter of Kum Kumar Pathak.”

-Her PAN records were also altered, first showing her as “R Bhatia” in 2019, later changed to “R Pathak” in April 2025.

-Income tax returns for 2022–2025 were filed in the name of “R Bhatia.”

-Voter ID records too showed variations, first listing her as “R Bhatia” and later updated as “R Pathak.”

The defence argued that the complainant created fake mobile chats to implicate the accused and even deleted crucial data before reluctantly handing her phone to the Investigating Officer (IO) for forensic examination after court intervention.

The Court noted that the complainant’s own statements contradicted her official identity documents. While she claimed dissociation from Sanjeev Bhatia in 2011, her Aadhaar records continued to identify her as his wife until as late as 2024.

The Court observed:

-There exists “reasonable doubt about the marital status of the complainant and her legal freedom to marry the applicant/accused.”

-The case was not one of forcible sexual assault.

-The accused had cooperated with the investigation, and the IO had already filed the charge sheet.

Finding the case fit for anticipatory bail, the Court allowed the application, directing that in the event of arrest, Parth Gupta shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

The Court imposed strict conditions, including that the accused shall not attempt to contact, threaten, or harm the complainant in any manner. Copies of the order were directed to be supplied to the IO and the counsel for the accused.