A prolonged consensual relationship and completed investigation supported anticipatory bail where custody was unnecessary.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0011 of 2026, registered at Police Station Sherkot, District Bijnor, for offences under Sections 69, 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The informant alleged that the applicant had sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant asserted that the informant, then about 24 years old, had been in a consensual relationship with him for six years and that the complaint followed the relationship’s breakdown.

He also relied on the absence of medical corroboration, his non-arrest during investigation, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the absence of any need for custodial interrogation.

The State and the informant opposed the application but did not dispute the stated factual aspects.

Whether the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the circumstances of the relationship, and the absence of a need for custodial interrogation.

Whether the applicant’s non-arrest during investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet supported release on bail.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Court noted that where an accused was not arrested during investigation and custody is not required, the filing of a charge-sheet alone does not warrant arrest; the court should ordinarily proceed by summons.

The Court also relied on authorities concerning sexual relationships based on promises of marriage, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, which holds that a promise is false for this purpose only if the maker lacked an intention to fulfil it from the outset.

The other cited decisions addressed the distinction between genuine sexual violence or absence of free consent and consensual adult relationships that later break down.

The Court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had not allegedly failed to cooperate with the investigation, and custodial interrogation was not required.

It also took into account the defence account of a prolonged relationship between two adults and the authorities cautioning against treating every failed relationship as an offence arising from a false promise of marriage.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court concluded that the applicant’s case was covered by the cited principles and that anticipatory bail was justified.

The applicant must cooperate with the trial, refrain from intimidating or influencing persons acquainted with the case, and not leave India without prior court permission.

The prosecution, Investigating Officer, or informant may seek cancellation in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.