State v. Guneet Singh

Bail Matter No. 1849/2025

(HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI, J)

The case at hand involves a regular bail application moved by accused Guneet Singh pursuant to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) against FIR under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Guneet was detained on 27.08.2025 following a complaint of sexual exploitation on the assurance of marriage. The FIR was lodged at the behest of a young lady whose identity was kept confidential throughout the case.

As per the FIR, Guneet and the complainant initially interacted at their office in June 2021 and soon became close. Guneet showed romantic interest, suggested marriage in August 2021, and introduced her to his family members as well, who also made assurances about their marriage. The complainant claimed that she agreed to physical intimacy only because Guneet kept assuring her that he would marry her, and his family also supported this notion. They took vacations together, and her family treated her as a daughter-in-law. Later, she accused Guneet of starting to use her just for sex, frequently making her view pornography, performing unnatural sex on her, and filming intimate moments without permission. She also accused that when she found Guneet’s encounters with other women and confronted him, he became abusive, eventually blocking her and denying marriage. The victim herein felt deceived and called her exploitation similar to being a “sex slave.”

The FIR further alleged that Guneet’s family had conspired with him, as they supported the relationship, knowing well that marriage would never happen. Certain incidents were brought to light in this regard, such as hotel reservations taken by Guneet, sexual activities video-recorded without anyone’s consent, and pressure from his family to deter legal action. Agreeing with these allegations, the complainant demanded a police probe, seizure of hotel records, and recovery of incriminating evidence from mobile phones.

During the investigation, the police added offences under Sections 376 and 354A IPC after consultation with senior officers. The complainant later recorded her statement under Section 183 BNSS before a Judicial Magistrate, reiterating that deceitful promises of marriage induced sexual relations. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that crucial evidence, including mobile phone data, was pending examination. Concerns were also raised about the possibility of the accused threatening the complainant, tampering with evidence, or absconding.

Conversely, the defence counsel opined that the relationship was consensual and of nearly four years’ duration, with both being educated adults who were conscious of religious differences that later became controversial. It was submitted that the mere inability to get married cannot be equated with inducing consent by false promise.

The complainant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the fraud was intentional and ongoing, and that the involvement of the family only lent strength to the misrepresentation. It was contended that the complainant’s consent was never free but was enforced through fraud, coercion, and misrepresentations. That she had been forced to write a letter to the police requesting no action against Guneet also illustrated the control exercised by him and his family.

The Court, after hearing the competing submissions and going through the record, examined Section 69 BNS, which makes sexual intercourse by fraudulent devices, including false representation of marriage without the intention to marry, a criminal offense. The Court observed that the complainant and the accused were in a long-standing relationship of more than three and a half years, characterized by frequent physical intimacy, vacations, and social recognition. The Court noted that the complainant never filed any complaint previously, even though the initial act of intimacy happened in December 2021 at her home. The long and ongoing nature of their relationship, together with mutual interactions, indicated consensual intimacy rather than force.

The Court ruled that not all breaches of promise amount to rape unless proof is presented that the promise was from the beginning false and made only with the intention to secure sexual favours. The Court further observed that the topics of religious differences and conversion had become issues of dispute between the parties, yet despite disagreement, the complainant still went around with the accused and was intimate, reflecting continued consent.

Regular bail was allowed to Guneet Singh on depositing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties on conditions such as not going outside the country without permission, depositing residential and contact details with the IO, cooperation with the investigation when called for, keeping away from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not approaching the complainant. The Court made it clear that remarks in the bail order would not touch the merits of the trial.