Allowed¶38

Kapil Thakur v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC7 Apr 2026BAIL APPLN./1336/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

regular bail, Section 69 BNS, false promise of marriage, live-in relationship, consensual relations, promise to marry, audio-visual recording, Annexure A-8 audio transcript, non-contact condition, personal bond Rs.20,000, FIR No.94/2026 PS Ranhola, Kapil Thakur, Delhi High Court, Girish Kathpalia, 07.04.2026, bail allowed, prosecutrix harassment concern

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted: release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; specific direction that the applicant shall not contact the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever; pending application (CRL.M.A.10519/2026) stands disposed of; copy of order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent. ¶38

Kapil Thakur Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant, charged under Section 69 BNS in FIR No.94/2026 of PS Ranhola, should be granted regular bail. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The prosecutrix is a grown up and educated lady who was in a live-in relationship with the applicant for almost 09 months, and her only concern conveyed through counsel was that if bail were granted the applicant would harass her (along with non-return of her jewellery and cash).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The audio-visual recording played in court by the Investigating Officer does not, in the Court's view, depict a promise to get married; it is an incomplete extract in which the applicant says he would marry only provided the lady does not bother him again and does not come to his home.

¶36

Key takeaways

Given the nature of these proceedings, the Court expressly refrained from deciding whether the relations were consensual or based on a false promise of marriage, leaving the trial court free to take an independent view at trial on the basis of overall evidence adduced.obiter¶37
Finding no reason to further deny liberty to the accused/applicant in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court allowed the bail application.ratio¶38
The accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Appln. 1336/2026 (High Court of Delhi, 07.04.2026, Girish Kathpalia J., oral): Regular bail allowed to accused charged under Section 69 BNS in FIR No.94/2026, PS Ranhola. Prosecution case: prosecutrix knew the accused since 2023; at the request of the accused and his mother she lived at his home from January 2025 to September 2025 to care for his ailing sister, during which sexual relations occurred, consented to, according to her, only because of a promise of marriage; she also alleged non-return of jewellery worth Rs.50,000/- and cash Rs.20,000/-. Applicant contended the relations were consensual in a live-in relationship without any promise of marriage, relying on a transcript of an audio recording (Annexure A-8), and attributed the rupture to the prosecutrix abusing his mother. An audio-visual clip of 19.09.2025 produced by the IO as showing a promise to marry was assessed by the Court as an incomplete extract in which the applicant offered to marry only if the lady stopped bothering him and coming to his home - hence not a promise to marry. The Court expressly declined to decide at the bail stage whether the relations were consensual or on a false promise, reserving the point for the trial court; noting the prosecutrix is a grown up, educated woman in an approximately 09-month live-in relationship whose sole concern was possible harassment, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety, with a specific direction that the applicant shall not contact the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever.

¶1

$~64

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026 & CRL.M.A.10519/2026

¶5

KAPIL THAKUR .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Bharat Singh and Mr. Durgesh Kumar Dubey, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for State with IO/SI Neetu.

¶10

Mr. J.K. Singh and Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocates for prosecutrix with prosecutrix and mother of prosecutrix in person.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶12

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶13

The accused/applicant seeks regular bail in case FIR No.94/2026 of Police Station Ranhola for offence under Section 69 BNS.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Neetu. I have also heard the

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026

¶16

Page 1 of 5 pages

¶17

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.07 05:59:21 -07'00'

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:0 7.04.2026 18:03:32

¶20

prosecutrix as well as her mother and counsel.

¶21

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. The prosecutrix lodged complaint on which FIR was registered on 11.02.2026. In that complaint, the prosecutrix alleged that she knew the accused/applicant since the year 2023 and they fell in love with each other. Thereafter, in December 2024 at request of the accused/applicant and his mother, the prosecutrix started living in the home of the accused/applicant in order to take care of his ailing sister. The prosecutrix lived in the home of the accused/applicant from January 2025 to September 2025, during which period they established sexual relations. According to the prosecutrix, she consented for sexual relations only because the accused/applicant promised to get married with her. There were multiple occasions when they indulged in sexual intercourse. Further, the prosecutrix alleges that the accused/applicant took from her jewellery worth Rs.50,000/- and cash Rs.20,000/-, which he has not returned.

¶22

Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the relations between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix were consensual relations, with no promise of marriage. It was a case of live-in relationship according to learned counsel for accused/applicant. Further, it is submitted that on account of gross misconduct of the prosecutrix in abusing mother of the accused/applicant in filthy language, he had no

¶23

BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026 Page 2 of 5 pages

¶24

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:0 7.04.2026 18:03:32

¶27

reason to get married with her. In this regard, learned counsel for accused/applicant has referred to Annexure A-8 to the application. The said Annexure A-8 is transcript of audio recording of the conversation between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix.

¶28

Learned counsel for prosecutrix opposes the bail application only on the ground that if released on bail, the accused/applicant will pressurize the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix submits that she started living in the home of the accused/applicant only because she wanted to help the ailing sister of the accused/applicant but the accused/applicant did not pay back the cash Rs.20,000/- taken by him from her and her jewellery worth Rs.50,000/-. As regards the abusive language used by the prosecutrix against mother of the accused/applicant, it is contended by counsel for the prosecutrix that since the accused/applicant was not getting married with her, out of frustration she uttered those filthy abuses against his mother.

¶29

Learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/SI Neetu having gone through the audio transcript of conversation between the accused/applicant and the prosecutrix submits that appropriate orders may be passed. However, the Investigating Officer has shown me in the pendrive an audio-visual recording of the accused/applicant, which according to her is the promise to get married.

¶30

To begin with, the said audio-visual recording played by the

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026

¶32

Page 3 of 5 pages

¶33

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:0 7.04.2026 18:03:32

¶36

Investigating Officer in court today does not depict, in my view, a promise to get married. The said audio-visual clip is an incomplete extract in which the accused/applicant tells the lady ( not visible in the clip ) that he would get married, provided she does not bother him again and does not come to his home. The tone and tenor of the accused/applicant in that clip is as if he is annoyed and wants not to be bothered again by the lady. It is stated by the prosecutrix that the said audio-visual clip was recorded on 19.09.2025. But by then, the prosecutrix already had multiple sexual incidents with the accused/applicant while living in his home since January 2025. Of course, at the final stage of trial, the learned trial court shall take independent view on the basis of overall evidence adduced.

¶37

Keeping in mind the nature of these proceedings, I would refrain from holding whether it was a case of consensual relations or the relations based on false promise to get married. For present purposes, it has to be kept in mind that the prosecutrix is a grown up and educated lady, who was into live-in relationship with the accused/applicant for almost 09 months and her only concern as conveyed through her counsel is that if granted bail, the accused/applicant would harass her. Also, her grievance is that the accused/applicant has not returned her jewellery worth Rs.50,000/- and cash Rs.20,000/-.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to further deny liberty to the accused/applicant. Therefore, the bail application is allowed and the

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 5 pages

¶41

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455 GIRISH 69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557 KATHPALIA 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.04.07 05:58:53 -07'00'

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:0 7.04.2026 18:03:32

¶44

accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. It is specifically directed that the accused/applicant shall not contact the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever. Pending application stands disposed of.

¶45

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.

¶46

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45
GIRISH 569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1557
KATHPALIA 0996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.04.07 05:58:40 -07'00'

¶47

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶48

APRIL 7, 2026/ ry

¶49

BAIL APPLN. 1336/2026

¶50

Page 5 of 5 pages

¶51

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Da te:0 7.04.2026 18:03:32

Kapil Thakur v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Thakur v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas @ Vicky Vs State, NCT of Delhi

Sandeep & Ors. Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ujjawal Kishore Dixit Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ankit Shokeen Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Pinnu Singh Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mohd Akhtar Vs the State NCT of Delhi