< Back

Case Analysis Jayant Vats vs State NCT of Delhi 2026 DHC 1403

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, disposes of a regular bail application filed by an accused in a case involving allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. The FIR was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her over several years on the repeated assurance of marriage, only to later refuse on the ground that their horoscopes (kundalis) did not match. The High Court, after examining the material on record, including WhatsApp chats, dismissed the bail application. It held that the applicant's conduct, including assurances that the kundalis had matched and the withdrawal of a previous complaint based on fresh promises, prima facie indicated a false promise made from the inception to secure consent, rather than a mere breach of a promise that subsequently became impossible to fulfill.

1. Heading for the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bail Appln. 376/2026

Jayant Vats ....Applicant

Versus

State (Nct of Delhi) ....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Decision: 16th FEBRUARY, 2026

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following legal framework:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Section 376: Deals with the offence of rape. In the context of a false promise of marriage, the consent obtained on the basis of a promise that was false from its inception is not considered "voluntary" consent and vitiates the act, making it rape.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
Section 69: This is a new provision in the BNS (which is progressively replacing the IPC). It specifically addresses sexual intercourse or any sexual act by deceiving a person or by making a false promise of marriage or employment. The court noted that the applicant's conduct would attract this specific provision.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
Section 183: The provision under which the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
Principles Governing Grant of Regular Bail:
The court considered the well-settled parameters for bail, including:
The nature and gravity of the accusation.
The prima facie case made out by the prosecution.
The role of the accused.
The possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.
The stage of investigation (chargesheet not yet filed).
Distinction in Law: False Promise vs. Breach of Promise: The court relied on the established legal distinction that a mere inability to fulfill a genuine promise to marry due to subsequent circumstances does not constitute rape. However, if the promise was false from the very beginning and was made only to induce consent, it amounts to rape.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

The Relationship: The applicant and the prosecutrix knew each other since their college days and were in a relationship for several years.
Allegations of Physical Relations: The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her on multiple occasions from July 2019 onwards at various locations, including his car, his residence, and hotels. The last incident was alleged to be on 12.09.2025.
Promise of Marriage: The prosecutrix claimed that all physical relations were on the repeated assurance of marriage by the applicant. He had introduced her to his family and relatives as his prospective wife, given her a ring, and publicly affirmed the relationship.
The "Kundali" Issue: The applicant later refused to marry her, stating that their horoscopes (kundalis) did not match, and his family had strong astrological beliefs.
Withdrawal of First Complaint: The prosecutrix had lodged a complaint in November 2025 but withdrew it after the applicant and his family allegedly assured her they would solemnize the marriage.
Fresh FIR: When no steps were taken, the prosecutrix filed a fresh complaint, leading to the present FIR.
Evidence on Record: The investigation included the prosecutrix's statement under Section 183 BNSS, her MLC, and, crucially, WhatsApp chats between the parties.
Key Chat Excerpt: A chat dated 14.09.2023 where the applicant stated "kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum" (we are getting married tomorrow itself), which the court interpreted as a representation that the kundali issue was already resolved.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The court addressed the following primary issues for the purpose of deciding the bail application:

Prima Facie Case: Whether the allegations and the material collected during the investigation, particularly the WhatsApp chats, disclose a prima facie case against the applicant for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 69 BNS.
Nature of Promise: Whether the material on record prima facie suggests that the promise of marriage was false from the inception (a "false promise") or whether it points to a consensual relationship where the promise could not be subsequently fulfilled (a "breach of promise").
Fitness for Bail: Whether, considering the gravity of the offence, the stage of investigation, and the prima facie material, the applicant is entitled to the discretionary relief of regular bail.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was focused on the specific facts and the evidence gathered, which, at the prima facie stage, weighed against the grant of bail.

Prima Facie Evidence of False Assurance: The court found that the material, especially the WhatsApp chats, prima facie indicated that the applicant had repeatedly assured the prosecutrix that there was no impediment to their marriage. The statement "kal hi shaadi kar rahe hain hum" was seen as a clear representation that the kundali-matching issue had been resolved. This suggested that the applicant was aware that the family's objection on kundalis was not an active hurdle at that time, yet he continued the physical relationship.
Conduct Inconsistent with Defence: The applicant's defence was that the marriage could not take place only due to the non-matching of kundalis. The court found this inconsistent with his own conduct of repeatedly assuring the prosecutrix that the issue was already addressed. The court reasoned that if kundali matching was of such "determinative importance," it should have been resolved at the threshold, not after years of physical relations.
Significance of Withdrawn Complaint: The fact that the prosecutrix withdrew her first complaint only upon fresh assurances of marriage from the applicant and his family was a significant factor. This demonstrated a pattern: the applicant and his family would make promises to de-escalate the situation, only to renege on them later, leading to a fresh complaint. This bolstered the allegation of deceit.
Distinguishing "Breach" from "False Promise": The court acknowledged the legal principle that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not amount to rape. However, it held that the present case stood on a "different footing." The sequence of events—long-term relationship, repeated assurances, withdrawal of a complaint based on fresh promises, and the final refusal on a ground (kundalis) that had allegedly been cleared earlier—pointed towards a promise that may have been false from the inception, designed to secure consent.
Stage of Investigation: The court also noted that the investigation was ongoing and the chargesheet was yet to be filed. Granting bail at this crucial stage could potentially hamper the investigation.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish a new legal principle. Its value lies in its role as a practical application of the established distinction between a "false promise" and a "breach of promise" in the context of a bail application, particularly in light of the new provisions of the BNS. Its key contributions are:

Prima Facie Assessment of "Kundali" as a Pretext: The judgment provides a clear example of how courts can assess, at a preliminary stage, whether a reason given for refusing marriage (like kundali mismatching) is a bona fide subsequent discovery or a convenient pretext. The applicant's own contemporaneous statements (the chat) were used to undermine the credibility of the defence.
Withdrawal of Complaint as Evidence of Deceit: The judgment illustrates how the withdrawal of an earlier complaint upon fresh assurances can be used by the prosecution to strengthen the case for a continuing pattern of deceit, rather than being seen as a sign of a frivolous complaint. It can be evidence of the accused's modus operandi.
Application of Section 69 BNS: The court's reference to Section 69 of the BNS, which specifically criminalizes sexual acts based on a false promise of marriage, signals that courts will actively apply this new provision in appropriate cases.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was focused and evidence-based, appropriate for a bail hearing.

Prima Facie Evaluation of Evidence: The court did not conduct a mini-trial but examined the material to see if it made out a prima facie case. It relied on the FIR, the Section 183 statement, and the WhatsApp chats to form its view.
Focus on Contemporaneous Evidence: The court gave significant weight to the WhatsApp chats, which are contemporaneous records of the applicant's own words and assurances. This objective evidence was crucial in countering the applicant's post-arrest defence.
Chronological Analysis of Conduct: The court traced the timeline of events—the long relationship, the repeated assurances, the withdrawal of the first complaint, and the final refusal. This sequence was used to build a narrative of deceit that was inconsistent with a simple "relationship gone sour."
Application of Legal Distinction: The court correctly identified the relevant legal distinction (false promise vs. breach of promise) and then applied the facts to this legal framework. It concluded that the facts prima facie leaned towards the former.
Bail Parameters: The court concluded that the nature and gravity of the offence, coupled with the prima facie material and the stage of investigation, made it an unfit case for granting bail at this juncture.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a balanced and well-reasoned decision at the bail stage. It correctly refuses bail while being careful not to prejudge the final outcome of the trial.

Strengths: The judgment's primary strength is its factual grounding. It does not merely rely on the gravity of the offence but bases its decision on specific pieces of evidence—the WhatsApp chat where the applicant spoke of marriage "tomorrow" and the sequence of the withdrawn complaint. This makes the decision robust and difficult to assail. The clear distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise is correctly articulated and applied. The court also correctly limits its observations to the bail stage, preserving the applicant's right to a fair trial.
Correctness: The decision is legally sound. At the bail stage, the court is required to see if there is a prima facie case. Given the chat evidence and the history of the complaint, a prima facie case was clearly made out. The court was right to refuse bail given the seriousness of the allegation and the potential for the accused to influence the investigation.
Potential Criticism: A critic might argue that the court gave too much credence to the prosecutrix's version and that the chats could be interpreted differently. However, at the bail stage, the court is not required to resolve such interpretative disputes; its role is to see if a reasonable prima facie case exists. The court's interpretation of the chat is plausible and sufficient for the purpose of this limited inquiry.

Final Outcome:

The bail application was dismissed. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to regular bail at this stage. It was clarified that the observations in the judgment were only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.