Delhi High Court
Vineet Sorout vs State Nct Of Delhi on 3 March, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~P-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on 27.02.2026
Pronounced on 03.03.2026
Uploaded on 03.03.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025
VINEET SOROUT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Shagun
Ruhil and Mr. Karan Chopra,
Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP.
SI Sujata and SI Sachin, PS:
Khajuri Khas.
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate
for the prosecutrix alongwith the
prosecutrix on VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMNET
1. By way of this application, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in
connection with FIR No. 401/2025, dated 09.10.2025, registered under
Sections 376(2)(n)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“], lodged at
Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi.
2. I have heard Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms. Manjeet Arya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Vishal
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the prosecutrix.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 1 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
3. The prosecution has also filed a status report, and the prosecutrix
has filed a reply to the application.
4. The prosecution’s case, as stated in the status report filed before
this Court, may be summarised as follows:
A. The petitioner came into contact with the prosecutrix in 2021,
through Instagram, as she used to run an online cosmetic and
garments business, and he used to purchase goods from her.
Consequently, both developed a friendship and started talking
regularly.
B. In June 2021, the petitioner visited the prosecutrix’s house, met
her family members, and expressed his desire to marry her. In
response to an inquiry by the prosecutrix’s family, the petitioner
and his sister, one Sandhya, stated that they had no demands in
respect of the prospective marriage. On this assurance, the
prosecutrix and her family agreed to the marriage.
C. On 21.05.2023, when the prosecutrix was alone at her house,
the petitioner came to her house, and on the false promise of
marriage, established physical relations with her. She further
states that when she expressed distress, the petitioner reassured
her that they will perform an engagement ceremony after
consulting his sister.
D. The petitioner was employed in the Army, and whenever he got
leave, he used to take the prosecutrix to a hotel and establish
physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. She
alleged that he used to provide different IDs at the hotel. DuringSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 2 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
this period, the petitioner recorded explicit pictures and videos
of the prosecutrix in his mobile phone, without her knowledge.
E. Owing to the prosecutrix’s repeated requests regarding
marriage, the petitioner and his sister fixed a date for
engagement as 01.05.2024, and the ceremony was accordingly
held. They also fixed a date for the marriage on 18.11.2025.
F. Even after the engagement, the petitioner used to take the
prosecutrix to hotels and establish physical relations on the
assurance of marriage. She specifically refers to an incident in
March 2025, when the petitioner informed the prosecutrix about
his trip to Assam upon completion of his leave, and took her to
a hotel in Ballabhgarh, Haryana, and again established physical
relations with her.
G. After this incident of March 2025, the petitioner stopped
communicating with the prosecutrix. When she contacted him,
the petitioner and his sister demanded Rs. 10,00,000/-, as dowry
for solemnisation of the marriage.
H. Later, the prosecutrix found that the petitioner had, in fact, fixed
his marriage elsewhere and had already performed an
engagement. When she confronted the petitioner for exploiting
her on the false pretext of marriage, the petitioner threatened her
with uploading her explicit photos and videos on social media
and ruining her life.
I. On 04.09.2025, the petitioner and his sister, alongwith 2-3
other people, came to meet the prosecutrix, during which the
petitioner assaulted her and fled. She states that she thereafterSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 3 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
called the police, and an NCR No. 58/2025, dated 06.09.2025,
was registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas.
J. Based on the complaint, medical examination of the prosecutrix
was conducted, and the aforesaid FIR was registered.
K. During the investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix under
Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[“BNSS”] was recorded, which corroborates her initial
allegations.
L. It is stated that the petitioner did not join investigation, despite
notices being pasted at his house. Ultimately, on 24.11.2025,
Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against him.
M. On 15.11.2025, the petitioner preferred an application seeking
anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, in which the
Sessions Court directed the petitioner to join investigation on
16.11.2025 at 12:00 PM, but the petitioner did not join the
investigation.
N. During investigation, the police obtained records of the hotel,
where the petitioner used to take the prosecutrix. The
investigation is still pending.
5. Mr. Kumar, in support of the application, submitted that the FIR
clearly shows that the parties were in a relationship for a long period of
about five years, during the course of which physical relations were
established on several occasions between May 2023 and March 2025.
During this period, the parties performed a “Roka”/engagement
ceremony, showing that there was no false promise of marriage. The case,
according to Mr. Kumar, is clearly one of souring of a relationship, which
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 4 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
does not make out the offense of rape. Mr. Kumar also drew my attention
to a communication dated 22.07.2025 by the prosecutrix, addressed to the
Station House Officer [“SHO”] at Police Station Khajoori Khas, and the
aforesaid NCR No. 58/2025 dated 06.09.2025, registered at Police Station
Khajuri Khas at the instance of the prosecutrix, in which no such
allegation was made. Mr. Kumar relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Samadhan v. State of Maharasthra and Anr.1, to submit
that the facts of the present case justify grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Ms. Arya and Mr. Chaudhary, on the other hand, submitted that,
although the relationship between the parties lasted more than four-five
years, the allegations establish that physical relations were made only
upon a promise of marriage. In fact, the petitioner even performed
ceremonial rites such as the “Roka”/engagement ceremony to deceive the
prosecutrix into believing his assurances. He also repeatedly took the
prosecutrix to hotels and presented different fake identification
documents. It was submitted that the prosecutrix has reiterated her
allegations in a statement recorded before the Magistrate’s Court under
Section 183 of BNSS, which is sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
7. While considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is
required to carefully balance the public interest in a fair and effective
investigation, with an accused’s right to personal liberty. This exercise is
undertaken with reference inter-alia to the seriousness of the offence, and
the prima facie material available against the accused. In this context, the
offence of rape is undeniably grave and heinous, which carries a
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 [hereinafter, “Samadhan”].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 5 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Court must, therefore,
carefully evaluate the material on record.
8. For the purposes of the present case, which concerns an allegation
of rape on the false pretext of marriage, the observations of the Supreme
Court in Samadhan, cited by Mr. Kumar, provide valuable guidance. The
Court was approached in an application for the quashing of an FIR, in
which the prosecutrix had alleged rape on the false pretext of marriage. It
is noted in the factual narrative, that the accused in that case had been
granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. While each such case
must turn on an analysis of its own facts, the Court’s observations and
reliance upon certain earlier judgments are relevant:
“27. In this regard, it becomes relevant to refer to the decision of this
Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra,
(2024) 11 SCC 398, (“Mahesh Damu”) wherein the following
observations were made:
“27. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual
relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he
is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship
must be traceable directly to the false promise made and not
qualified by other circumstances or consideration. A woman
may have reasons to have physical relationship other than
the promise of marriage made by the man, such as personal
liking for the male partner without insisting upon formal
marital ties.
28. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is
maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman,
it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical
relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made
by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown
that the physical relationship was purely because of the
promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the
physical relationship without being influenced by any other
consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of
consent under misconception of fact.”
(underlining by us)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 6 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
28. We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant
lured respondent No. 2 solely for physical pleasures and then
vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years,
which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and
emotionally involved. In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred
during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be
retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because
the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.
29. This Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the
disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given
the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest
kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual
violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour
relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness
of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and
grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal
discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is
a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation.
30. In Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, this Court
speaking through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that a mere
break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result
in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual
relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a
colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a
marriage. The relevant portion is extracted as under:
“20. In our view, taking the allegations in the FIR and the
charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the
offence under Section 376(2)(n)IPC are absent. A review of
the FIR and the complainant’s statement under Section
164CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of
marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in
2017. Therefore, even if the prosecution’s case is accepted at
its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant
engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on
account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant.
The relationship between the parties was cordial and also
consensual in nature. A mere break up of a relationship
between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of
criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship
between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a
colour of criminality when the said relationship does not
fructify into a marital relationship. Further, both parties are
now married to someone else and have moved on in their
respective lives. Thus, in our view, the continuation of theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 7 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross
abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose would be
served by continuing the prosecution.”
(underlining by us)
31. This Court is conscious of the societal context in which, in a
country such as ours, the institution of marriage holds deep social and
cultural significance. It is, therefore, not uncommon for a woman to
repose complete faith in her partner and to consent to physical
intimacy on the assurance that such a relationship would culminate in
a lawful and socially recognised marriage. In such circumstances, the
promise of marriage becomes the very foundation of her consent,
rendering it conditional rather than absolute. It is, thus, conceivable
that such consent may stand vitiated where it is established that the
promise of marriage was illusory, made in bad faith, and with no
genuine intention of fulfilment, solely to exploit the woman. The law
must remain sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been
breached and dignity violated, lest the protective scope of Section 376
of the IPC be reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved. At
the same time, the invocation of this principle must rest upon credible
evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or
moral conjecture. ”
The prima facie material available in the present case, must be viewed in
the context of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court.
9. In the present case, the prosecutrix claims to have been acquainted
with the petitioner since the year 2021. The FIR was registered on
09.10.2025, on the basis of a complaint dated 15.09.2025. While delay in
registration of the FIR may not by itself be conclusive, particularly in the
case of allegations of sexual offences, what is significant in the present
case is that the prosecutrix had, in the interregnum, made a prior
complaint to the police on 22.07.2025, which did not include any such
allegation. The said communication, which has been translated by the
petitioner, reads as follows:
“Sir,
It is requested that I, XXX, D/o XXX, reside at XXX. I love Vineet, S/o
Shiv Dayal Singh. My relationship has been fixed with him. I haveSignature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 8 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
known him for 6 years, but now he is refusing to marry me. And now he
is demanding dowry from me. He and his family are demanding 10
lakh rupees from my family. My family cannot do that because they do
not have that much money. My family even told his family that they
would do what they can, but his family is still demanding 10 lakh
rupees in the name of dowry and giving threats.
Sir, I request you to please solve my problem.”
The subsequent NCR dated 06.09.2025 also refers to an allegation of
physical assault, but no allegation of rape, whether on the false pretext of
marriage or otherwise. This allegation was made for the first time in her
complaint dated 15.09.2025, upon which the FIR was registered on
09.10.2025.
10. The aforesaid communication is subsequent to the incident of
March 2025, referred to in the FIR, which was allegedly the last occasion
on which a sexual relationship was established between the parties.
Nonetheless, no allegation of rape on the false pretext of marriage was
made in the complaint. The very first statement in the communication
dated 22.07.2025 reproduced above, is that the prosecutrix was in love
with the petitioner. This aligns with the possibility that a physical
relationship may be made without a promise of marriage, as indicated in
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of
Maharashtra2. Similarly, the length of the relationship for a period of
almost five years, during which the prosecutrix claims to have been
emotionally invested in the relationship, parallels the observations of the
Supreme Court in paragraph 28 of Samadhan, which has been reproduced
hereinabove. The fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix performed
pre-marriage rituals, such as the “Roka”/engagement ceremony in the
2
[(2024) 11 SCC 398], paragraph 27.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 9 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
course of a long relationship of almost five years, and a physical
relationship of almost two years, coupled with the contents of the
complaint dated 22.07.2025, renders prima facie plausibility to the
petitioner’s case. While these matters are ultimately to be adjudicated at
trial, having regard to the prime facie case, and the fact that the petitioner
has no prior criminal antecedents, I am of the view that it is appropriate to
protect him from deprivation of his liberty.
11. The bail application is, therefore, allowed, and it is directed that, in
the event of arrest in connection with the FIR No. 401/2025, dated
09.10.2025, registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas, Delhi, the
petitioner will be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer [“IO”]/SHO, and subject to the
following conditions:
A. The petitioner shall join and cooperate with the investigation as
and when required by the IO;
B. The petitioner shall furnish his mobile number to the IO and shall
ensure that the said mobile number remains operational and
switched on at all times. The mobile number shall not be changed,
nor shall the phone be switched off, without prior intimation to the
IO;
C. The petitioner shall furnish his residential address to the IO and
shall not change the same without prior intimation to the IO;
D. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, influence the
prosecutrix or any witness, nor shall he tamper with the evidence in
any manner whatsoever;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 10 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49
E. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the pendency of
the proceedings.
12. The bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are solely for the
purpose of adjudication of the present bail application, and shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall
they prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any stage of the
proceedings.
14. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court
Master.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 03, 2026
Bhupi/AD/
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PARUL BAIL APPLN. 4593/2025 Page 11 of 11
VASHIST
Signing Date:03.03.2026
16:49:49