X vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 November, 2025

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

X vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 26 November, 2025

1. Petition under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „B.N.S.S.‟) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant for cancellation of Bail of the accused person/Respondent No.2 granted vide Order dated 29.04.2025, in FIR No. 120/2025 Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC‟) registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner/Complainant/Victim and the Respondent No. 2/Accused, namely, Mohd. Ziaur Rehman, were in a relationship since 2017. On 01.01.2018, the Respondent No. 2 established physical relationship with the Petitioner, allegedly, on the false pretext of marriage which continued till 2024 when the Respondent No. 2 got married to another woman, deceiving and emotionally exploiting the Complainant. Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of digital chats, Notices and the Complainant's consistent statements, the Trial Court did not appreciate the continuing deception and the psychological trauma caused to the Prosecutrix and granted Bail mechanically.

3. The reliance on Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and This is a digitally signed order.

4. The reliance is placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 where it was held that consent under misconception of fact is not consent in law, and such cases demand cautious scrutiny at the time of Bail.

5. Learned Trial Court erred in holding that the Prosecutrix being a "mature UPSC aspirant," nullified her victimization. Maturity does not extinguish deceit, especially when the trust was abused by the Respondent No. 2 in a prolonged relationship. Grating Bail in such serious offences, sends a wrong signal to society and encourages perpetrators to evade accountability by misusing consent in intimate relationships. The cancellation of Bail is sought on the grounds:

                                    (i)       Misrepresentation of Legal Precedents;
                                    (ii)       Seriousness of Allegations;
                                    (iii)     Risk of Tampering with the Evidence/Witnesses;
                                    (iv)      Flight Risk; and
                                    (v)       Public Interest.

6. It is further contended that the Bail had been granted prematurely despite the pending investigations with no protection to the Complainant. The three-pronged test laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 i.e. the nature of accusation, severity of punishment and the possibility of tampering with evidence, has not been considered. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Order dated 29.04.2025 vide which the Bail has been granted to the Respondent No. 2, be recalled and he be committed to custody.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2025 at 20:48:53

7. The Petitioner has placed Reliance on Y. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 7 SCC 124; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Madan Lal, (2023) - Supreme Court; P. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 5 SCC 403; Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422; Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 559; X vs. State of Gujarat, (2023)-Supreme Court; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; State vs. Mohd. Ifran, (2024)

-Delhi High Court and X vs. State, (2023) Karnataka High Court, in support of his Case.

8. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein the details of the facts and the investigations, are stated in detail.

9. It is submitted that during the investigations, Notice under Section 94 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟) dated 06.03.2025 was served on the victim, to produce documentary and electronic evidence in proof of the allegations. The victim came to the Police Station on 11.03.2025 and gave her written Reply and produced the screenshots of WhatsApp Chats and coloured photographs of the Accused and the victim together, along with the Certificate under Section 63(4) BSA.

10. The victim came to the Police Station and handed over her mobile phone containing WhatsApp Chats and photographs with the Accused. Mobile phone was seized and deposited in the Malkhana. Bank Statement of victim was also obtained through PNB Bank.

11. The Supplementary statement of the victim was recorded and Section 406 IPC was added.

12. On 18.03.2025, Mr. Asbab Alam, owner of the House No. 7/B, Okhla Vihar, Jamia Nagar, joined the investigations and he gave a Statement that the Accused/Respondent No. 2, Md. Ziaur Rehman has cheated him of This is a digitally signed order.

13. On 21.03.2025, Notice was sent to wife, namely, Seham Naushad and sister, namely, Shani of the Respondent No. 2, to join the investigations along with the mobile phone of the Accused. On 24.03.2025, Seham Naushad, wife of the Accused, joined the investigations and handed over the mobile phone of the Accused, which was seized and deposited in the Malkhana.

14. During further investigations, on 25.03.2025, Sadqa Madhat @ Shani joined the investigations, who was interrogated and was discharged thereafter.

15. On 27.03.2025, a Notice was sent to Bank Manager, DBS Bank to verify the bank statement of the victim, which reflected that the total amount of Rs.6,06,200/- was sent to the Accused from the account of the prosecutrix. The exhibits have been sent to FSL Rohini for forensic examination, though the result is awaited.

16. The Regular Bail was granted by the learned ASJ on 29.04.2025. The Charge-Sheet has been filed in the Court on 21.05.2025 and the matter is now listed for Arguments on Charge.

17. A Reply has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/Accused, which has been taken on record, and it is submitted that the parties had financial transactions arising out of certain Committees (chit/fund arrangements) organized by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 used to make payments to the Petitioner, as per her demand both in cash and through Online transfers, from his Axis Bank, Bandhan Bank Accounts. The Respondent No. 2/Accused left Delhi on account of COVID in August, 2020 and thereafter, started working in Ranchi. There was no dispute between the This is a digitally signed order.

18. However, due to loss of employment and income, Accused was unable to continue making payments to the Petitioner. She, therefore, lodged the Complaint against him before SHO, Police Station Inder Puri, for recovery of money by wrongly alleging cheating. The Police on the said Complaint Case, gave Notice dated 11.12.2024 and 16.12.2024 to the Respondent No. 2 on his mobile phone, directing him to appear and join the enquiry. The Respondent No. 2 duly co-operated and presented himself, demonstrating that there was no dishonest intent on his part.

19. The Respondent No. 2 further submits that the Petitioner has deliberately attempted to mislead the Court by citing Notices dated 11.12.2024 and 16.12.2024 issued in the earlier Complaint of Cheating, and by falsely suggesting that they were issued in the present FIR. The material facts have been deliberately concealed in this regard, which amounts to clear abuse of process of law and demonstrates that the Petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands.

20. The Respondent anticipating possible misuse of the criminal process by the Complainant, filed an Informatory Case bearing MCA (Informatory) Case No.8708/2024 under Section 33 of BNS, before the learned CJM, Ranchi wherein he stated that the Petitioner had been consistently threatening him with instituting false criminal cases and had even extended threats to his life through certain associates in Bihar. The Petition was taken on record vide Order dated 21.12.2024 and the proceedings were disposed of.

21. Once the Complaint for cheating was closed, the Petitioner filed the present FIR on 27.02.2025, which is nothing but an attempt to give the This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2025 at 20:48:53 matter completely different colour, without disclosing the earlier proceedings. The present Complaint had been filed in complete retaliation to the closure of the earlier Complaint of cheating. The consequence of events demonstrates that the present criminal case is an afterthought and has been initiated only after the Complainant failed to succeed in her earlier Complaint.

22. It is further submitted that there are false allegations made in the present FIR. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the Respondent No. 2 promised to marry the Complainant, it was done in bad faith or with an intention to deceive her. She herself has stated in the FIR that even in 2024, the Respondent No. 2 used to tell her that he would speak to his family regarding the solemnization of marriage and return of money.

23. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 2 had got engaged in the month of October, 2024, a fact which has been concealed in the present FIR.

24. The Respondent No. 2 got arrested on 01.03.2025 from Ranchi. He thereafter, filed the Application for Bail, which after a detailed and considered Order dated 29.04.2025, has been granted to him.

25. The Respondent No. 2 has relied on Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr., 2020 (2) SCC 118 to emphasis the conditions which must be looked for while considering the Application for cancellation of Bail. It is submitted that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned Order and the Application is liable to be dismissed.

26. It is explained that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 met in the year 2017 and from 01.01.2018 i.e. for more than six years, they were in the physical relationship. The Respondent No. 2 shifted his home town to Ranchi in 2020 and thereafter, got married in July, 2024, a fact which was This is a digitally signed order.

27. The learned ASJ has considered all these aspects in detail and has passed a judicious Order, which fails to demonstrate any infirmity, perversity or arbitrariness.

28. In the Order, a reliance is placed on A vs. State of Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr., (Crl. M.C. No. 1142/2022) whereby the Petition for cancellation of Anticipatory Bail in similar circumstances, had been rejected. Further reliance is placed on Charu Soneja vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., (Crl.M.C. No. 2050/2021) and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P., AIR 2022 SC 2514.

29. It is claimed that the vague, speculative and hollow assertions have been made in the Application alleging risk of witness tampering, flight risk, public interest and victim confidence which are not supported by any facts, do not meet the minimum threshold required for cancellation of Bail.

30. Therefore, reliance is placed on Jaspal Singh Kaural vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 756 wherein the Apex Court observed that where physical relationship between the Accused and the Prosecutrix was consensual from the beginning, then it cannot be construed to be without her consent or against her will. Reliance is also placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608. The averments made on the merits are all denied.

31. It is submitted that there is no merit in the present Petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

32. Before considering the contentions on merit, it is significant to This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2025 at 20:48:53 observe that there is a distinction between recall and cancellation of Bail. While recall can be made only if it is established that Bail has been granted by not considering the relevant facts on merits, cancellation is prompted by subsequent events and violation of terms of Bail by the Respondent.

33. In the case of Ajwar vs.Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768, it was observed as under:

"27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order."

34. It has been further observed in Ajwar, (supra):

"28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court for setting aside the bail order on an application being moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner."

35. In the recent judgement of Ashok Dhankad vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690 the Apex Court has succinctly explained and summarized the factors for consideration for setting aside of Bail Orders, as under:

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2025 at 20:48:53 "19.The principles which emerge as a result of the above discussion are as follows:

(i) An appeal against grant of bail cannot be considered to be on the same footing as an application for cancellation of bail;

(ii) The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution.

The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail;

(iii) An order granting bail must reflect application of mind and assessment of the relevant factors for grant of bail that have been elucidated by this Court.

(iv) An appeal against grant of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity;

illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime;

(v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and

(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above."

36. In the light of aforesaid principles, the contentions raised in the present Petition be now considered.

37. The brief background of the present case is that as per the FIR, the Complainant had met the Respondent No. 2 in the year 2017. It is claimed that he wanted to get marry to her and on this pretext, he established physical relationship with her on 01.01.2018 and their relationship continued thereafter. It was stated that there was a persistent offer by the Respondent No. 2 to get married to her. Furthermore, during this period, he told her about his difficulties and took a sum of Rs.5,31,000/- from her through This is a digitally signed order.

38. The Complainant claims that Respondent No. 2 left the premises in Delhi after cheating her. The owner of the property even got his posters pasted in the village.

39. She was talking to the Respondent No. 2 on the mobile phone, who kept on assuring that he would soon talk to his family members and get married to her and also return the money. He left Delhi in the year 2022.

40. Thereafter, on 01.07.2024, the Respondent No. 2 sent her some photographs where he was sitting with another lady in a restaurant and that lady called her in another name to inform that they have already got married, which fact was confirmed by Shani, sister of the Respondent No. 2, who misbehaved with her on the telephone.

41. Firstly, from the contents of the FIR, it is evident that the learned Trial Court had noted about the physical relationship between the Prosecutrix and the Respondent No. 2 since 01.01.2018. It was noted that in 2022, the Respondent No. 2 shifted to Ranchi and also got married in July, 2024, to another woman. It was further noted that while as per the Complainant, the false promise of marriage was made in 2018, but they admittedly, continued to be in relationship for more than six years.

42. In the recent judgement in the case of Jothiragawan vs. State, 2025 INSC 386 decided on 24.03.2025, the Apex Court quashed rape charges against the Appellant reiterating that a breach of a promise to marry, does not constitute rape unless fraudulent intent existed from the date of commencement of the sexual relationship. It was observed that the allegation of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not believable, given the relationship admitted between the parties and the This is a digitally signed order.

43. The Ld. ASJ rightly observed that from the averments made in the Complaint, her allegations that the consent was obtained on false promise of marriage, is to be determined only after recording of evidence. Further, the question of consent under misconception of fact (false pretext of marriage) cannot be mechanically presumed and must be tested only at trial, thereby reinforcing that the Trial Court's grant of Bail cannot be faulted on this ground seeking cancellation stage.

44. Secondly, the Accused was arrested on 01.03.2025 but was granted Bail on 29.04.2025. This in itself cannot be a ground for cancellation, since the Bail has been granted to him vide a reasoned Order by the learned ASJ. It is not the duration, but the totality of circumstances coupled with the severity of the allegations and the triple test, which is the basis for granting of Bail.

45. Thirdly, the Petitioner has asserted that there were serious allegations of emotional and psychological exploitation of the victim over a period of six years. It was rightly observed by the learned ASJ that she was a mature woman who was preparing for UPSC examination and it was difficult to comprehend that such a person would be unable to discover the deceitful behavior of the Accused or would continue in the relationship over such a long period of time.

46. It is no doubt true that merely because a person is an adult and matured, he or she cannot be exploited emotionally and phycology, but here it is a case where the Petitioner was well aware and conscious of her deeds and acts. Maturity does not preclude vulnerability, but in this case, the long duration of the consensual relationship raises serious doubts about whether This is a digitally signed order.

47. Fourthly, it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent No. 2 has highlighted that there were money transactions between the two for which she had filed a Complaint of cheating in which no such allegations were made. This Complaint of Cheating after investigations, had been closed. The FIR has followed thereafter, in February, 2025. These circumstances also raise the concern about the alleged deception and emotional exploitation of the Complainant. The learned ASJ has rightly appreciated the long relationship over a period of six years to grant Bail.

48. Fifthly, the Petitioner has claimed that he is a flight risk. However, as per her own submissions, he is settled in Ranchi and was arrested from there. Once the permanent roots of the Respondent No. 2 are known and established, it cannot be said that he is a flight risk.

49. Lastly, it is also claimed by the Petitioner that there is a likelihood of him tampering with the witnesses. However, the main prosecution witness is the Complainant herself. The question of him influencing the Complainant does not arise and, therefore, this ground is also without basis.

50. In the totality of circumstances and the entire backdrop and the circumstances and the nature of allegations, it cannot be said that the facts have not been rightly appreciated while granting the Bail. There are no such grounds made out for cancellation of Bail.

51. The Petition is dismissed, accordingly.

52. Pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

NOVEMBER 26, 2025/RS This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/12/2025 at 20:48:53

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders