A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of establishing physical relations with a woman after luring her under the false promise of marriage, noting that he addressed the victim as “future wifey" to take her consent.
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi was hearing the plea filed by Satish Kumar, who has been accused of luring a Kerala-based woman on the pretext of marriage and establishing physical relations with her.
In the order dated June 9, the court said, “Considering the grave nature of the allegations, the evasive and absconding conduct of the applicant, and the imminent necessity of his custodial interrogation for the recovery of digital evidence and medical examination, shielding him with pre-arrest bail would severely prejudice the ongoing investigation." According to the prosecution, the complainant, a 23-year-old cybersecurity professional from Kerala, came into contact with the accused through a matrimonial portal.
She alleged that Kumar persuaded her to travel to Delhi with assurances of marriage and that the two lived together at an Airbnb accommodation in Chhatarpur for about 19 days.
An FIR was registered against the accused under BNS sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means) and 351 (criminal intimidation).
The woman alleged that the accused established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage but later abruptly stopped communicating, blocked her and disappeared.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover electronic evidence and examine the digital trail of communications between the parties.
The defence argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused after the relationship broke.
It also claimed that the woman had concealed details of an earlier domestic relationship.
The court noted that the parties admittedly met online, stayed together in Delhi and had a physical relationship, though they differed on whether the intimacy was based on a genuine promise of marriage.
After examining WhatsApp conversations placed on record, the judge said the material prima facie indicated that the accused had addressed the complainant as “future wifey" and “wifey" and that his conduct after the period of cohabitation warranted investigation.
The court noted that Section 69 of the BNS penalises sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it.
“The applicant’s deliberate actions, from manipulating the accommodation booking offline to abruptly blocking the complainant after achieving physical intimacy, substantiate the prosecution’s claim of a prima facie case of false promise to marry made at the inception," the court said.
Holding that the applicant did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail at this stage, the court dismissed the application.
