CRL.M.C. 8300/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8300/2025 MS KS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Singh Lamba, Mr. Vivek Agarwal, Mr. S Khan, Mr. Naresh, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr. Akash Kumar, Mr. Mahender Rathour, Advocates for R-2. SI Akansha CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 28.07.2026 1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Court, in connection with FIR No. 498/2025 dated 02.09.2025, registered at Police Station Amar Colony, South-East District, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. I have heard Mr. Vivek Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tarang Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 3. The FIR was originally registered for the offence punishable under 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:42 CRL.M.C. 8300/2025 Page 2 of 4 Section 69 of the BNS. It arises out of a complaint lodged by the petitioner, alleging that respondent No. 2 established a sexual relationship with her on the false promise of marriage during November and December 2024. It is further alleged that, as a consequence of the said relationship, the petitioner conceived and was subsequently compelled to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy on 09.01.2025. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 ultimately refused to solemnise the marriage, whereupon the present FIR came to be registered on 02.09.2025. 4. Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 12.10.2025. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, the learned Sessions Court granted him regular bail, inter alia, on the following observations: “5. The complainant has stated in the Court that there were no talks between her family and the family of applicant/accused regarding their marriage. IO has reported that the complainant has not revealed the phone number or address of her parents, who live at Jamshed Pur. 6. Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused argued that there was no promise of marriage between the parties. The FIR reveals consensual relations between the parties. The complainant is 31 year old and a working lady, whereas, the applicant/accused is 26 year old. 7. The investigation as against applicant/accused is stated to be complete. He has been in judicial custody since 12.10/2025. This is not a case of sexual assault, whereas, no talks between respective family of the parties regarding their marriage has been alleged. The Court finds it fit case for grant of bail to the applicant/accused. The bail application is allowed.” 5. Mr. Agarwal’s first submission is that the observations made by the learned Sessions Court in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order should be confined to the adjudication of the bail application, and should not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties at any subsequent 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:42 CRL.M.C. 8300/2025 Page 3 of 4 stage of the proceedings. Mr. Srivastava and Mr. Singh do not object to the issuance of such clarification. In any event, it is well settled that an order passed on a bail application is founded solely on a prima facie assessment of the material available at that stage. Accordingly, the observations contained in the impugned order shall not influence or prejudice the adjudication of the proceedings on merits at any subsequent stage. 6. The second ground urged by Mr. Agarwal, pertains to an allegation that the petitioner was contacted and threatened through WhatsApp messages and telephone calls by a person identifying himself as one Ashish Jha. Printouts of the WhatsApp conversations have been annexed to an application filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate’s Court, a copy whereof has also been placed on record before this Court. It is alleged that the contents of the said WhatsApp messages reveal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the present case and contain certain remarks which, according to the petitioner, could only have been made at the instance of respondent No. 2. 7. Upon instructions from the petitioner, who is present in Court, Mr. Agarwal submits that the WhatsApp messages and telephone calls from Ashish Jha were received between December 2025 and March 2026, and that no further messages or calls have been received thereafter. 8. Mr. Srivastava submits that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the matter was duly investigated. In the course of the investigation, respondent No. 2 and Ashish Jha were interrogated, and both denied any acquaintance with each other. The Investigating Officer has further reported that no telephonic connectivity between them has 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:42 CRL.M.C. 8300/2025 Page 4 of 4 been found. Mr. Srivastava further submits that the Investigating Officer shall independently examine the petitioner’s complaint and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, as to whether the registration of a separate FIR is warranted. He further states that, in the event the petitioner receives any further WhatsApp messages or telephone calls from Ashish Jha or any other person in connection with the present case, the Investigating Officer shall take such action as may be warranted in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Agarwal upon instructions, does not press the present petition. However, in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Agarwal reserves her right to avail of such remedies as may be available to her in accordance with law. 10. The petition, alongwith pending application, is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. 11. It is clarified that the aforesaid Ashish Jha is not a party to the present petition. Consequently, no observation made in this order shall be construed as constituting any direction against him or to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station in relation to any proceedings concerning him. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 28, 2026 Tg/SD/ 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 30/07/2026 at 14:32:42