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

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 678 of 2024, registered at Police Station Gulariha, District Gorakhpur, under Sections 115(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case arose from an allegation that the victim had been subjected to rape on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the victim was a major, approximately 21 years old, and that the parties had remained in contact and maintained a consensual relationship for about seven years.

He further relied on the fact that the parties had subsequently married on 5 August 2024 and obtained a marriage-registration certificate on 7 August 2024.

The applicant asserted that the FIR was lodged after the relationship deteriorated and that the victim’s version had materially changed.

He also argued that there was no medical corroboration, that he had not been arrested during investigation, that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the factual submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant.

An earlier Division Bench order dated 27 August 2024 had stayed the applicant’s arrest.

1. Whether, in view of the parties’ prolonged relationship, subsequent marriage, absence of alleged custodial necessity, and the applicant’s non-arrest during investigation, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS

2. Whether the allegations prima facie disclosed a false promise of marriage vitiating consent, or instead indicated a prolonged consensual relationship which subsequently turned sour

3. Whether the applicant’s release on anticipatory bail should be subject to conditions relating to cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving India

The Court applied the anticipatory-bail jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNSS and the general principles governing bail.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, it held that where an accused was not arrested during investigation and custodial interrogation was not required, the filing of a charge-sheet by itself should not ordinarily result in arrest or incarceration.

Under Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, a prolonged physical relationship knowingly maintained by an adult may indicate voluntary consent and cannot automatically be attributed solely to a promise of marriage.

The Court relied on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528; Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 (4) SCC 197; Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154; and Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055, for the principle that consensual relationships which later become acrimonious should not automatically be criminalised as rape, unless there is evidence of coercion, absence of free consent, or a false promise made without intention to perform it from the inception.

Applying Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court reiterated that a mere breach of a promise to marry is distinct from a false promise made with fraudulent intent at the time it was made.

It also relied on Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, and Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 7 Supreme 489, concerning consensual relationships and the misuse of criminal proceedings following a failed relationship.

The Court found that the applicant and the victim had maintained a continuous relationship for approximately seven years, during which the victim, an adult, allegedly continued to meet and maintain a physical relationship with the applicant.

This prolonged association, coupled with the parties’ subsequent marriage, supported the applicant’s contention that the relationship was consensual and did not, at the interim stage, demonstrate a false promise of marriage made fraudulently from the outset.

The Court also considered that the FIR appeared to have followed the deterioration of the relationship, that the prosecution did not dispute the applicant’s factual submissions, and that the applicant had not been arrested during investigation or shown to require custodial interrogation.

Without expressing a final opinion on the merits, the Court held that the case was covered by the cited principles concerning prolonged consensual relationships and that the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail.

In the event of arrest or appearance, Mukesh Sahani was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of the trial upon 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 before the court as and when required.

He was required to refrain from inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing facts to the court.

He was required not to leave India without prior permission of the court.

The prosecution, investigating officer, or first informant was granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.