A consensual relationship does not by itself warrant anticipatory bail where specific allegations require investigation.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and the prosecutrix had been in a relationship for about six years, during which he promised to marry her and had physical relations with her; he later refused to marry her.

The case diary also recorded an allegation that, after the prosecutrix became pregnant, the applicant gave her pills purportedly to terminate the pregnancy.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, the FIR was a counterblast to a repayment demand concerning Rs. 1,10,000, and he was willing to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the need for investigation.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail where the prosecution alleged that he obtained physical relations on a promise to marry and later refused to marry the prosecutrix

Whether the applicant’s assertions of a consensual, long-term relationship and a repayment-related motive for the FIR warranted anticipatory bail at this stage

The application was made under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail; the alleged offence was under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court assessed the request on the allegations and material then available, including the nature of the accusation and the need for investigation.

It held that a claim of consensual relations was not, by itself, conclusive of entitlement to anticipatory bail, and that the cited co-ordinate Bench orders did not create an automatic right to relief.

No other statutory provision or precedent was identified as forming the basis of the decision.

The Court considered the specific allegation that the applicant had promised marriage before having physical relations with the prosecutrix, as well as the case-diary allegation concerning the pregnancy and pills.

It found that the applicant’s account of a consensual relationship did not, on its own, resolve the matter in his favour at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The allegations and the applicant’s defence raised disputed questions requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence; the Court also found the cited orders distinguishable on their facts.

The applicant’s first application under Section 482 BNSS was dismissed.