Delhi High Court: In a bail application arising out of FIR registered under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), a Single Bench of Girish Kathpalia, J., refused to grant bail to an accused alleged to have operated 9 different matrimonial profiles using varying identities and particulars. The Court observed that the creation and operation of multiple matrimonial profiles, including one in which the accused posed as a woman, prima facie lent credence to the prosecution’s case that he was a “predator of innocent girls” and held that the case was not fit for grant of bail.
Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix, who stated that she met the accused through a well-known matrimonial website in October 2024. After learning about her previous divorce, the accused agreed to marry her, following which they started meeting to know each other closely before marriage. According to the prosecutrix, the accused called her for meeting and thereafter took her to a Hotel and insisted on have sexual relations with her. She alleged that although she refused to have sexual relations before marriage, the accused took her into confidence and assured her that they would spend their entire life together, following which they entered into a sexual relationship. She further alleged that the accused continued to indulge in sexual relations with her on the pretext of getting married, while continuously postponing the marriage for one or the other reason.
The prosecutrix stated that the accused asked her to agree to a threesome sexual relationship, which she refused. She also contented that the accused showed her the obscene photographs of hers, and blackmailed her, because of which she accompanied him to a Hotel where he again indulged in sexual relations with her threatening to circulate those photographs.
Therefore, the prosecutrix had filed a complaint under Sections 69, 64(1), 79, 75(2) and 351(3) BNS alleging that the accused had raped her under false promise of marriage and that he floated as many as 9 different profiles on the matrimonial website, one of which profiles was to the extent of declaring himself a girl.
The accused, while seeking bail, contended that there was no cogent material to establish that he had created 9 different profiles on the matrimonial website and further argued that the prosecutrix, being a major, could not have been induced into a sexual relationship on a false promise of marriage.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that during investigation, it was found that the accused had created and operated 9 different profiles on the matrimonial website using different names, qualifications, occupations, mobile numbers and email IDs. Not only this, one of the profiles created by the accused was of a girl. A witness from the matrimonial website had deposed before the trial court that all these profiles had been created by the accused, which prima facie lent credence to the State’s argument that the accused was a predator of innocent girls.
The Court also observed that the accused had admitted having clicked objectionable pictures of the prosecutrix and having cheated a number of girls in a similar manner. The Court also took note of an audio recording produced by the prosecutrix, in which the accused had allegedly made certain admissions, which was subsequently sent for forensic examination upon an application moved by the State.
Considering these circumstances, the Court did not find the case to be fit for grant of bail and dismissed the bail application. The Court further clarified that nothing observed in the order would prejudice either side and that the trial court would take an independent view on the basis of the evidence adduced at the stage of final arguments.
[Gaurav Jaiswal v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No. 2388/2026, decided on 22-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Rakhi Dubey and Mr. Bipin Dubey, Advocates
For the State/Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC and Mr. Vineet Malhotra, Advocate