New Delhi, Feb 16 (NationPress) The Supreme Court remarked on Monday that prior to marriage, a boy and a girl are “strangers” and emphasized the need for caution before engaging in a physical relationship.

This statement was made by a Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while addressing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by a man seeking bail, who is accused of rape under the alleged false promise of marriage.

The Delhi High Court previously denied his bail on November 18, 2025, in connection with an FIR lodged under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC at the Vasant Kunj North Police Station.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna's Bench commented, “perhaps we are old-fashioned, but before marriage, a boy and a girl are strangers.”

They further noted that regardless of how deep their relationship may be, it is perplexing how individuals can engage in physical intimacy prior to marriage.

“One must exercise extreme caution. No one should take anyone at face value before marriage,” the Supreme Court added.

The prosecution's case states that the complainant, approximately 30 years old, met the petitioner through a matrimonial site in 2022.

Their interactions developed into a relationship during which the accused allegedly proposed marriage.

As per the prosecution, the first incident of sexual assault occurred on November 1, 2023, when the complainant traveled from Madhya Pradesh to Delhi to meet the petitioner at IGI Airport.

The petitioner purportedly booked a hotel room in Mahipalpur and “forcibly established sexual relations under the guise of marriage” and recorded intimate videos without her consent.

The FIR also claims that at the accused's urging, the complainant traveled to Dubai in February 2024, where he again established physical relations on the promise of marriage and recorded nude videos.

Eventually, the complainant learned that the petitioner was already married and had entered into a second marriage in January 2024.

In opposing the bail plea before the Delhi High Court, the prosecution argued that the allegations revealed “a consistent pattern of deception, manipulation, and inducement,” including threats to circulate private videos.

The Delhi High Court, in its bail refusal order, noted that the petitioner was already married and had solemnized a second marriage during the relationship with the complainant.

It concluded that “despite knowing that marriage with the prosecutrix was impossible, the petitioner made false promises” indicating that the promise “was not made in good faith but was deceitful from the outset.”

Moreover, the High Court observed that “the voluntariness of travel cannot negate the prosecutrix’s consistent claim that every act of intimacy was based on a false promise of marriage,” leading to the dismissal of the bail plea.

When the matter was addressed again in December 2025, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the Delhi Police and the complainant.

During Monday's hearing, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench questioned why the complainant traveled abroad before marriage if she was serious about tying the knot.

The Bench indicated that cases involving consensual relationships may not be appropriate for trial and conviction, suggesting the possibility of exploring mediation.

The SLP is now scheduled for Wednesday to allow the parties to seek further instructions and consider a settlement. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since February 6, 2025, and the chargesheet has already been filed, with the trial yet to begin.