A prolonged consensual relationship, absent fraudulent intent from inception, does not constitute rape.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 295 of 2025, Police Station Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar, registered under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on allegations that the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual relations on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the prosecutrix, aged approximately 28 years, had remained in contact with him for nearly eight years and that their relationship was consensual; according to him, the FIR was lodged after the relationship deteriorated and he declined to marry her.

The FIR was initially registered at Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur, and was subsequently transferred to Police Station Chakeri, Kanpur Nagar.

The applicant had not been arrested during investigation because his arrest had been stayed by the High Court on 2 April 2025. The police filed the charge-sheet on 25 May 2025, and cognizance was taken on 26 September 2025.

The applicant asserted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, that he had no criminal antecedents, and that he would cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the factual submissions.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, when he had not been arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer required?

Whether the allegations, viewed against the parties’ prolonged eight-year relationship and the surrounding circumstances, prima facie indicated a false promise of marriage vitiating consent, or a consensual adult relationship that subsequently became acrimonious?

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS concerning anticipatory bail.

The Court relied on the principle in Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, that where an accused has not been arrested during investigation and custody is not required, the filing of a charge-sheet by itself should not result in arrest or incarceration; ordinarily, the court should issue summons rather than warrants.

On allegations involving a promise of marriage, the Court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, holding that the promise must have been false from its inception and made with an intention to deceive; a mere subsequent breach of promise is insufficient.

The Court further relied on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398; Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764; Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528; Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 (4) SCC 197; Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055; Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154; and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, for the principle that a prolonged relationship between consenting adults, without cogent evidence of a false promise made in bad faith from the outset, should not ordinarily be converted into an offence of rape merely because the relationship later fails.

The Court considered that the applicant had remained free throughout the investigation, had not been arrested pursuant to the interim protection granted by the High Court, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed; consequently, custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.

Applying Aman Preet Singh, the Court held that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet did not, by itself, justify arrest.

On the merits relevant to bail, the Court noted the prosecutrix’s alleged eight-year association with the applicant, the prolonged physical relationship between two adults, the absence of immediate complaint, and the allegation that criminal proceedings commenced after the relationship turned sour.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Court found that the material placed before it prima facie suggested a consensual relationship and did not establish, for the purposes of anticipatory bail, that the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception or made with a deceptive intention.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not recording a final opinion on the merits.

In the event of arrest or appearance, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

He was required to cooperate with the trial and appear as directed, refrain from influencing or threatening witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the trial court.

The prosecution, Investigating Officer, or complainant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach or misuse of the conditions.