In Abhishek Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 4485/2026, decided 4 November 2026), the Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused under Sections 376 and 313 IPC after a relationship of more than four years ended without marriage. Justice Mini Pushkarna, applying recent Supreme Court authority, held that it was prima facie established that the parties had lived together for over four years — a fact consistent with a consensual relationship rather than one founded on a promise of marriage — and that the remaining allegations were matters for investigation and trial, not pre-trial custody.
The case in one view
| Case | Abhishek Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 4485/2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Delhi, Justice Mini Pushkarna |
| Decided | 4 November 2026 |
| FIR | No. 528/2026, PS New Ashok Nagar, Sections 376 and 313 IPC (as recorded in the order) |
| Relief sought | Anticipatory bail under Section 482 read with Section 528 BNSS |
| Outcome | Anticipatory bail granted on conditions |
The relationship and the complaint
The petitioner and the complainant were in a relationship from 2022 until May 2026 and lived together for more than four years. The complaint alleged that the petitioner gave the complainant a medicine described as a painkiller after which she miscarried, that a pregnancy was terminated at a Ghaziabad hospital on 31 March 2023 against her wishes, and that when she asked him to marry her he refused — after which the FIR followed. The petitioner’s answer was that the relationship was entirely consensual, that it broke down over temperamental differences, that he then returned to his native place in Bihar, that he has no antecedents, and that he had joined the investigation under the interim protection granted on 16 October 2026 — a fact the Additional Public Prosecutor confirmed, while noting that a potency test was pending and the source of the medicine remained to be verified.
The legal framework the Court applied
The Court anchored its analysis in the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), which hold that a relationship that ends without marriage is not automatically criminal, and that consent given during a long consensual association cannot be retrospectively converted into rape merely because marriage did not follow. Against that standard, the Court found that “it is prima facie established that the petitioner and the complainant lived together for more than four years” — a duration consistent with a physical relationship not founded on any promise of marriage. Whether a false promise was in fact made, it held, is a question for trial.
The contemporaneous record mattered: the complainant’s own letter to the SHO dated 5 June 2026 — before the FIR — described a fight with the petitioner and admitted that the pregnancy arose from their relationship, with no mention of any false promise to marry. As for the miscarriage allegation, the Court observed that “the administration of any medicine to the complainant... form the subject matter of investigation and trial as well.”
The conditions of protection
- In the event of arrest, release on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO.
- Reporting to the investigating officer whenever required, and undergoing any tests sought.
- No contact with the complainant or her family.
- No tampering with evidence; no inducement to or threats against witnesses.
- Mobile phone kept operational, with number changes notified; residential address disclosed and changes intimated; no fresh offence.
Where this fits in the developing law
False-promise-of-marriage prosecutions sit at a difficult intersection: genuine deception that vitiates consent is a serious offence, while the criminalisation of every failed relationship is an abuse of the process. Courts have increasingly drawn the line by asking whether the promise was false at its inception and whether it was the operative cause of consent. Long cohabitation, continued association after alleged incidents, and contemporaneous communications that make no mention of a promise all point away from vitiated consent. This decision applies that framework at the anticipatory bail stage: where the prima facie picture is of a consensual adult relationship that soured, custodial interrogation is not the default, especially for an accused who has already joined the investigation. The order decides protection from arrest, not the trial — the allegations about the medicine and the termination remain live issues for the investigation — but it illustrates how the pre-arrest balance is struck in such cases.
One drafting note for practitioners: although the FIR is of 2026, the order records the offences under Sections 376 and 313 IPC, and this article states them as the order does.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was alleged in the FIR?
FIR No. 528/2026 of PS New Ashok Nagar alleged offences under Sections 376 and 313 IPC: that physical relations rested on a promise of marriage, that the complainant was given a medicine described as a painkiller after which she miscarried, and that a pregnancy was terminated against her wishes, with the complaint following the accused's refusal to marry.
Why did the Court grant pre-arrest bail despite rape allegations?
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), the Court held that a relationship ending without marriage is not automatically criminal. Over four years of cohabitation prima facie indicated consent independent of any promise, and whether a false promise existed at all was for trial.
What role did the complainant's earlier letter play?
The Court noted her letter to the SHO dated 5 June 2026, written before the FIR, which described a quarrel with the petitioner and acknowledged that the pregnancy arose from their relationship — without any mention of a false promise to marry. That contemporaneous silence weighed in the prima facie assessment.
Was the accused cooperating with the investigation?
Yes. Interim protection was granted on 16 October 2026, and the investigating officer confirmed that the petitioner joined the investigation on 19 and 27 October 2026. The Court's conditions require him to continue appearing before the IO whenever required and to undergo any tests sought, including the pending potency test.