Indian courts, clearly reported
Download today’s paperArchives

Court Rejects “Situationship” Label, Grants Bail to Gen Z Accused in Rape Case on Promise of Marriage

A Delhi court has granted bail to a young man accused of sexual assault on the allegation that he lured his partner into intimacy with a false promise of marriage. The court found that the three-and-a-half-year-long relationship between the two—marked by trips, family introductions, and ongoing intimacy—showed no sign of deceit or coercion from the outset.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi noted that this was not a fleeting “situationship” but a sustained relationship between two Gen Z adults who had knowingly chosen to be together.

The complainant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the accused, a Sikh man, assured her of marriage, recorded private moments without consent, and subjected her to unnatural sex. She claimed she later realised she was being used and said her suspicions deepened after finding him chatting with other women.

The defence countered by stating the complainant was educated and independent, fully consenting to the relationship, and that the case arose only after the couple’s breakup.

Prosecution resisted bail, arguing that evidence could be tampered with, pointing out that phones of both parties had already been seized and analysed. The court, however, found that strict conditions could safeguard against such risks, especially since the accused had no prior criminal record.

In its reasoning, the court cited earlier rulings of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, emphasising that consensual long-term relationships cannot later be rebranded as criminal unless it is proven the marriage promise was fraudulent from day one.

The judgment also acknowledged that interfaith differences between Islam and Sikhism had been a known challenge throughout the relationship, yet both individuals continued to live together, travel, and share intimacy even after disputes about marriage had arisen—clear indications, the court said, of ongoing consent.

Considering all factors, the court granted bail with conditions, directing the accused to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.

Share this story