Delhi High Court – Orders
Shubham Through Parokar vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 20 May, 2026
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~153
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 & CRL.M.A. 16108/2026
SHUBHAM THROUGH PAROKAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Singh Thakur,
Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with SI
Anita Meena, P.S. Keshav Puram.
Mr. Harish, Advocate for
Prosecutrix alongwith Prosecutrix
in Person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 20.05.2026
1. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the applicant seeks regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 332/2025 dated 26.04.2025, lodged at Police
Station Keshav Puram, District North-West, Delhi, under Sections
376/406/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“].
2. I have heard Mr. Deepak Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the
applicant, Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr.
Harish, learned counsel for the complainant – prosecutrix. The State has
also filed a status report dated 30.01.2026, which is on record.
3. The prosecution case, as it appears from the material on record,
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 1 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
may be summarised as follows:
a. The prosecutrix has completed a post-graduate degree from Indira
Gandhi National Open University. She was working in a Cosmetic
Beauty Product Shop in Sadar Bazaar in July 2016. The applicant,
a resident of Kaithal, Haryana, came to the said shop in connection
with his cosmetic business. In connection with the business, the
prosecutrix had given him her phone number, and he was to contact
her for the purchase of products.
b. The applicant wanted a relationship with the prosecutrix, which she
declined; however, she agreed to his desire to remain friends.
c. In October 2016, the prosecutrix’s parents were away from home
when the applicant asked her if he could visit her home on the
pretext of borrowing money. She gave him her home address for
this purpose. Upon visiting her home, when she went towards the
kitchen, he forced her into a room, bolted it from inside, and
committed sexual intercourse without her consent. He also
blackmailed her and took nude photographs and videos, on the
basis of which he continued to threaten her with their publication.
d. Due to fear, she continued to meet the applicant, who extended a
promise of marriage, on the basis of which the prosecutrix
continued to establish physical relations with him on several
occasions.
e. The applicant declined the prosecutrix’s requests for marriage on
the ground of his financial condition.
f. The prosecutrix purchased a motorcycle for him in the year 2019
so that he could establish an online delivery job, and in 2020, onBAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 2 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
the pretext of marriage, she also purchased a car for him to enable
him to commence a tour and travel business. He did not fulfil his
promise to reimburse the EMI amounts to her. He also did not
return the motorcycle when requested.
g. The FIR mentions that the prosecutrix remitted a sum of
approximately Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs to the applicant, as well as to his
brother, and his maternal uncle. However, in the status report, it is
recorded that the prosecutrix has stated that an amount of
approximately Rs. 13.14 lakhs was, in fact, transferred to the
applicant’s bank account, of which approximately Rs. 1.38 lakhs
was returned. Additionally, certain amounts were transferred to
other members of his family.
h. During the course of investigation, Medico-Legal Case of the
prosecutrix was conducted on 26.04.2025, in which she reported a
history of physical and sexual assault by the applicant since 2016,
and stated that the last sexual contact occurred in June/July 2024,
after which she filed a complaint on 19.04.2025.
i. The applicant was arrested on 20.05.2025.
j. The motorcycle and car in question have been recovered and
released to the prosecutrix on superdari.
k. The prosecutrix made a complaint on 27.07.2025 with regard to
threats from family members of the applicant, which, according to
the prosecution, could not be substantiated due to lack of direct
evidence.
4. In support of the present application, Mr. Thakur submits that the
investigation in the present case is complete and the chargesheet has
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 3 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
already been filed. The prosecution has cited 33 witnesses, but the trial
has not yet commenced. The applicant has been in custody for one year.
He further submits that the facts of the case disclose a long relationship
between the applicant and the prosecutrix, lasting approximately 8 years.
The applicant and the prosecutrix were also of a similar age, and it is
contended that the relationship was, in fact, consensual in nature. He
submits that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, and that the
allegations of threats or influence upon the prosecutrix have not been
substantiated.
5. Mr. Vali and Mr. Harish, on the other hand, submit that the
prosecutrix has made specific and categorical allegations against the
applicant, commencing with the first incident of forced sexual intercourse
in October 2016, and a relationship that was established thereafter on the
false pretext of marriage. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has stood by
the same version in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Additionally, Mr. Harish submits that the prosecutrix apprehends
further threats and attempts to influence her, if the applicant is released
from custody at this stage. It is also submitted that, although the
chargesheet has been filed, the trial is at an initial stage.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that
it is appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to
release the applicant on bail. Although the allegations under Section 376
of the IPC are doubtless serious, that cannot be the sole determinative
factor for adjudication of a bail application. The FIR has been registered
on the basis of a complaint dated 19.04.2025, which itself refers to the
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 4 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
first incident of alleged forcible sexual intercourse approximately 8 years
prior, in October 2016, followed by a relationship spanning about 8 years,
with the prosecutrix reporting the last incident of sexual intercourse in
June/July 2024. The allegations, other than the first incident of October
2016, relate to a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage, on
the basis of which it is alleged that the prosecutrix also provided the
applicant with a motorcycle and a car.
8. As far as an offence of rape on the false pretext of marriage is
concerned, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithvirajan v. The
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No.
12663/2022, decided on 20.01.2025], requires the establishment of
several ingredients. The following observations of the Court are relevant
for the present purposes:
“6. This Court has time and again reiterated that only because
physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it
will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the
following conditions need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised
to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations
without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very
beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual
relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of
marriage. [See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. (2019) 9 SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The
State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 347]
7. The instant case is one of consensual relationship between the
appellant and prosecutrix. Even otherwise, it does not appear from
the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the
appellant was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR itself suggests that
the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due
to intervening circumstances. Consequently, the relationship ended
because of which the present FIR came to be registered. Under these
circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short
of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted.”
[Emphasis supplied.]
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 5 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
9. Further, in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2528] and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra
[(2024) 11 SCC 398], the Court has also clarified that every romantic
relationship that turns sour, even if it was originally predicated on a
prospect of marriage, does not satisfy the ingredients of the aforesaid
offence. The defence case of a long consensual relationship between two
educated adults of similar age also cannot be characterised as inherently
implausible.
10. As far as the allegations of financial transactions between the
applicant and his family and the prosecutrix are concerned, the
chargesheet has already been filed and the evidence is largely
documentary in nature.
11. While the above consideration are matters for trial, a prima facie
assessment of the material on record, as required at the stage of bail, does
not, in my view, justify the further deprivation of the applicant’s liberty in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. The applicant has already been in custody for one year. As 33
witnesses have been cited and the trial has not yet commenced, it is
unlikely that the proceedings will conclude within a short time. The
applicant also has no prior criminal antecedents.
13. The prosecution, in its status report, has specifically stated that the
allegations with regard to the influence or threats extended to the
prosecutrix, have not been substantiated due to lack of direct evidence. I
am of the view that the prosecutrix’s apprehension in this regard can be
allayed by imposition of strict conditions upon the applicant.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that the applicant be
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 6 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
released on bail in connection with FIR No. 332/2025 dated 26.04.2025,
lodged at Police Station Keshav Puram, District North-West, Delhi, under
Sections 376/406/509 of the IPC, subject to furnishing of a bail bond in
the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, and subject to
the following further conditions:
a. The applicant shall appear before the Sessions Court on each and
every date of hearing fixed;
b. The applicant shall provide his permanent address to the Sessions
Court, as also the address where he is residing during the pendency
of the case. The applicant shall intimate the concerned
Investigating Officer [“IO”]/ Station House Officer [“SHO”], and
file an affidavit before the Sessions Court, regarding any change in
his residential address;
c. The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the concerned
IO/SHO, which shall be kept in working condition at all times. The
mobile number shall not be switched off or changed without prior
intimation to the IO/SHO, during the pendency of the trial;
d. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact the
prosecutrix or her family members, or exert any influence upon
them. In the event the prosecutrix makes any complaint of this
nature, the IO is directed to take appropriate action in accordance
with law. It is made clear that any breach of this condition may
lead to cancellation of bail granted to the applicant;
e. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with theBAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 7 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
facts of the case or tamper with the evidence of the case, in any
manner whatsoever;
f. The applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his
release.
15. The bail application is disposed of in terms of the above.
16. It is clarified that any observations made in the present order are
solely for the purpose of deciding the present bail application, and shall
neither influence the trial proceedings, nor be construed as an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the concerned Jail
Superintendent electronically for information and necessary compliance.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MAY 20, 2026
‘pv/KA’/
BAIL APPLN. 4/2026 Page 8 of 8
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 21/05/2026 at 21:29:40
