Summary: Jayant Vats was denied bail by the Delhi High Court after being accused of tricking a woman into a sexual relationship by falsely promising to marry her. The case involved complicated issues about consent and lying.
On January 3, 2026, a complaint was filed at Keshav Puram Police Station, Delhi, by Ms. S, a 27-year-old woman. She accused Jayant Vats of tricking her into a sexual relationship by pretending he would marry her. They had known each other since 2018, and she claimed that Vats had physical relations with her based on his promise to marry. However, Vats later refused to marry her, saying their birth charts didn't match.
The police conducted a medical examination of Ms. S on January 3, 2026, at Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital. Her statement was recorded on January 6, 2026. She repeated that Vats had promised marriage and had a physical relationship with her over several years. She also mentioned being threatened with the release of photographs.
Jayant Vats’ lawyer argued that the relationship was mutual and that the marriage didn't happen because their birth charts didn't match. On the other hand, Ms. S’s lawyer pointed out WhatsApp messages where Vats assured her that their birth charts matched and pressured her into a physical relationship.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the evidence, including messages, suggested Vats repeatedly promised Ms. S that they would get married. The court found that these promises were not real and that Vats' actions could lead to charges for lying about marriage promises.
The court decided not to release Jayant Vats on bail. The official charges had not yet been made, and the accusations were serious, showing that the investigation was at an important stage.
"Considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation so far, and the fact that charges in the case are yet to be filed, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage." - Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
The bail application was dismissed on February 16, 2026. The court stressed that its comments were only for deciding the bail and not about whether Vats was guilty or not.
