Not a situationship: Delhi court grants bail to Gen Z accused in rape case over false promise of marriage

A Delhi court on Friday granted bail to an accused in a case alleging sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage, observing that the prolonged relationship of over 3 and a half years marked by continued intimacy was sufficient to conclude that there never was an element of pressure or deceit in the relationship.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi also made some observations involving slang words used by GenZ youth.

The Court said that it was a case of relationship and not a case of mere 'situationship' (a relationship in which the persons involved do not consider themselves as a romantic couple but which may include behaviour including sexual relation).

“It is nobody’s case that the complainant and xxx were in a situationship. Both of them are Gen-Z consenting adults, who engaged in active sexual relationship during the currency of their relationship (dating phase) lasting over three and half years.”

In the case registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the complainant, a Muslim woman had alleged that the accused, a Sikh man, developed intimacy with her on the assurance of marriage, introduced her to his family, took her on multiple trips, forced unnatural sex and recorded intimate acts without her consent.

However, she said that she later felt she was treated as a sex slave. Before the registration of the case, she had caught the accused "chatting with strange girls and liking their pictures."

However, the counsel representing the accused said the complainant was an educated progressive girl, who willingly and consensually entered into a relationship with the accused. The accused has been embroiled in a baseless case after break-up, the Court was told.

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution said the accused could tamper with evidence. It was argued that mobile phones of both parties had been seized and sent for forensic analysis. The Court was also told Section 376 (rape) has also been invoked against the accused.

However, the Court said the concerns of prosecution can be taken care of by stringent conditions. Further, it noted that the accused does not have any criminal antecedents.

In granting relief to the accused, the Court also placed reliance on judgments of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court in which it was held that consensual long-term relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalised unless the promise of marriage was false from the outset.

Further, the Court noted that the conversion of religion had also became a sore point between the couple.

"It is observed that during the currency of their long-term consensual relationship, the complainant and xxx were well aware about the obstacles of inter-religion marriage, Islam and Sikhism. It is also observed that as per the allegations in the subject FIR that even after arguments arose regarding marriage, the complainant continued to visit, reside with xxx, proceed on vacations, and even go to hotel rooms, further indicating ongoing consent," the Court said.

Taking into account the overall facts, circumstances and by placing reliance upon the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the trial court found it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused on bail. 

Hence, the Court ordered that the accused be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate.

[Read Order]