A prolonged consensual relationship, absent fraudulent intent from inception, does not constitute rape based on a promise to marry.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2026, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, at Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

The prosecution allegation was that the applicant subjected the informant-victim to rape on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the victim was a major woman aged approximately 49 years and that the parties had remained in contact and maintained a consensual relationship for about six years.

The applicant had earlier been protected from arrest by a Division Bench of the High Court on 16 May 2025, and the charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 14 August 2025; accordingly, it was argued that custodial interrogation was no longer required.

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

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail where the alleged sexual relationship continued between two adults for approximately six years and the charge-sheet had already been filed without the applicant’s arrest during investigation?

2. Whether the allegations prima facie disclosed rape on account of a false promise of marriage, or whether the case appeared to arise from a consensual relationship that subsequently became acrimonious?

3. Whether the applicant’s release on anticipatory bail should be subject to conditions securing his cooperation with the trial and preventing interference with witnesses or the administration of justice?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerning anticipatory bail, read with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Court held that where an accused was not arrested during investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the filing of a charge-sheet by itself ordinarily should not result in arrest or incarceration; courts should ordinarily issue summons rather than warrants absent reasons contemplated by law.

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, Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 (4) SCC 197, Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055, and Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154, for the principle that a prolonged relationship between consenting adults does not, without more, establish rape induced by a misconception of fact.

Under Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, a promise to marry constitutes a false promise only where the maker had no intention to honour it from the inception; a subsequent failure to marry is not, by itself, sufficient.

The Court also relied on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, concerning the need to distinguish genuine sexual offences from criminal proceedings arising out of failed or broken relationships.

The Court found that the applicant and the victim were adults who had maintained contact and an alleged physical relationship for approximately six years.

This prolonged association, together with the absence of any arrest during investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, supported the applicant’s submission that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Applying the principles governing false promises of marriage, the Court considered that the factual circumstances were more consistent, at the anticipatory-bail stage, with a consensual relationship that had subsequently turned sour than with a promise made fraudulently from its inception to obtain sexual consent.

The State did not dispute the factual aspects relied upon by the applicant.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant’s case was covered by the cited precedents and that a case for anticipatory bail had been made out.

In the event of arrest or appearance, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 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 before the court as and when required, refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer, or first informant-complainant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.