Anticipatory Bail in BNS §69: Concealment of an Existing Domestic Relationship (and Children) Can Evidence “False Promise of Marriage” Despite No Registered Marriage

1. Introduction

In ROHIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. (Delhi High Court, decided on 07.04.2026), the petitioner/accused sought anticipatory bail in an FIR registered as FIR No. 586/2025 at P.S. Vijay Vihar under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecutrix alleged that the accused induced a sexual relationship by a promise of marriage, concealed that he was already in a marriage-like relationship with another woman (Zeenat Parveen), and that she underwent medical termination(s) of pregnancy following the relationship. The State opposed bail, emphasizing concealment of material facts, the accused’s non-cooperation with investigation despite notice, and alleged attempts to mislead the court.

The core issues were: (i) whether the allegations and collected material prima facie supported “sexual relations by deceit/false promise” under BNS §69, (ii) whether the accused could defeat the “false promise” theory by claiming he was not legally married to the other woman, and (iii) whether anticipatory bail should be denied given the accused’s conduct and non-joining of investigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court rejected anticipatory bail. It held that the prosecutrix made specific allegations of being induced into physical relations on a false promise of marriage while the accused concealed a subsisting, accepted domestic relationship with another woman and the existence of two children from that relationship. The Court found no merit in the argument that absence of a registered/legal marriage with the other woman neutralized the alleged deceit. The Court also relied on the accused’s failure to join investigation despite notice and noted the allegation that he attempted to mislead the Sessions Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not affect the merits at trial.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite any prior reported decisions by name. The reasoning is instead built on: (i) the factual record collected during investigation (photographs, birth certificates, inquiry report), (ii) the Sessions Court’s assessment (including verification ordered by it), and (iii) settled bail principles (prima facie assessment, discretionary relief, cooperation with investigation).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

  • Material concealment can sustain prima facie “deceit”: The Court treated concealment of the accused’s existing domestic relationship (accepted by family, cohabitation, ceremonies, and two children) as a material fact relevant to whether the promise of marriage was dishonest from inception and whether the prosecutrix’s consent was vitiated.
  • “Not legally married” is not a complete defence at the bail stage: The accused argued he was only in a live-in relationship, not a legally registered marriage, so his promise of marriage to the prosecutrix could not be “false.” The Court rejected this, reasoning that the collected material prima facie indicated a marriage-like, socially accepted, subsisting relationship with children— sufficient, at least at this stage, to support the prosecution’s case that the promise to the prosecutrix was deceptive.
  • WhatsApp chats did not establish informed consent to the “true situation”: Even if “Zeenat” was mentioned in chats, the Court found no indication that the prosecutrix knew of marriage-like cohabitation or two children, i.e., the potentially decisive facts. The Court therefore did not accept the accused’s claim that she consented with full knowledge.
  • Conduct and cooperation are pivotal in anticipatory bail: The Court noted (a) alleged misleading submission before the Sessions Court (claiming the prosecutrix was married), and (b) failure to join investigation despite notice under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023. These factors weighed heavily against discretionary pre-arrest protection.
  • Prima facie “misconception of fact” framework: The Court endorsed the Sessions Court’s view that the material indicated dishonest intention “from inception” regarding the promise of marriage, and that the prosecutrix appeared to have entered the relationship under a misconception of fact arising from that promise.

3.3 Impact

  • BNS §69 investigations may focus on concealment of domestic realities: The decision signals that courts may treat undisclosed cohabitation, family acceptance, and parenthood from another relationship as strong prima facie indicators of deceit where marriage is promised to induce consent.
  • Registration formalities may not shield an accused at the bail stage: By declining to treat “no legal marriage” as dispositive, the Court indicates that the inquiry can be functional and fact-based (cohabitation, children, conduct), not limited to formal marital status.
  • Non-joining of investigation can be determinative: The ruling reinforces that anticipatory bail is unlikely where the accused ignores statutory notice and does not cooperate, especially in fact-intensive allegations involving medical/FSL evidence and custodial interrogation needs.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Anticipatory bail: A pre-arrest protective order. It is discretionary and commonly depends on (i) seriousness of allegations, (ii) prima facie material, (iii) possibility of tampering or evasion, and (iv) cooperation with investigation.
  • BNS §69 (in this case’s context): Invoked where sexual relations are alleged to have been obtained through deceit/false representation, including a false promise that vitiates genuine consent.
  • “False promise of marriage” and “misconception of fact”: If a promise of marriage is alleged to be dishonest from the start and is used to obtain consent, the consent may be treated as not fully informed (i.e., given under misconception).
  • Notice under BNSS §84: A statutory mechanism by which police call an accused to join investigation; ignoring it can weigh strongly against bail.
  • “Products of conception” and FSL: Biological material from pregnancy termination can be sent for forensic testing to assist investigation (e.g., linkage/identity issues).

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail underscores a pragmatic, fact-driven approach in alleged BNS §69 cases: where an accused is shown (prima facie) to have concealed a subsisting domestic relationship and children while promising marriage to the prosecutrix, courts may treat the promise as potentially deceptive notwithstanding the absence of a formally registered marriage. The decision also reiterates that attempts to mislead the court and non-cooperation with investigation are powerful grounds to deny pre-arrest protection.