A prolonged consensual relationship and subsequent breakup do not, absent initial deceit, constitute rape.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2026, Police Station Jasrana, District Firozabad, registered under Sections 69, 352, 351(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution allegation arose from a relationship between the applicant and the informant-victim, who was a major and approximately 21 years old.

The applicant contended that their relationship was consensual and continued for a prolonged period, and that the FIR was lodged after the relationship deteriorated and the applicant allegedly declined to marry her.

The applicant further relied on the victim’s refusal to undergo medical examination, alleged inconsistencies in her version, and the absence of medical corroboration.

His arrest had earlier been stayed by a Division Bench on 19 February 2026. The investigating agency subsequently filed the charge-sheet on 11 March 2026, and cognizance was taken on 12 June 2026.

Since the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, he argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

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

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail where he had not been arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet had been filed, and custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Whether the allegations prima facie reflected a consensual, prolonged relationship between two adults that subsequently turned sour, rather than sexual relations induced by a false promise of marriage.

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the fairness of the trial and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerning anticipatory bail, together with the principle that an accused who was not arrested during investigation and whose custodial interrogation is unnecessary should ordinarily not be taken into custody merely because a charge-sheet has been filed.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Court held that, where the accused has cooperated and was not arrested during investigation, the Magistrate should ordinarily issue summons rather than warrants, and the accused’s continued liberty may itself justify bail.

The Court also 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, 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 principles that a prolonged relationship between consenting adults may indicate voluntary consent and that a subsequent failure or refusal to marry does not, by itself, establish rape.

Under Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, a promise to marry vitiates consent only where it was false from the inception and made with no intention of being fulfilled; a mere breach of promise is insufficient.

The Court also referred to Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, where proceedings arising from a prolonged consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry were quashed.

The Court noted that the applicant and the victim were adults who had allegedly maintained a prolonged relationship, and that the victim continued to associate with the applicant for a substantial period before lodging the FIR.

On the material placed before it, the Court considered the allegation to be prima facie consistent with a consensual relationship that later became acrimonious, rather than a relationship demonstrably induced by a promise that was false from its inception.

The alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s account, refusal of medical examination, and absence of medical corroboration were also considered relevant at the anticipatory-bail stage.

Further, the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and no need for custodial interrogation was shown.

Applying the principle in Aman Preet Singh, the Court held that arrest merely upon filing of the charge-sheet would not be justified in these circumstances.

The Court expressly clarified that it was not expressing any 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 the trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

He was required to cooperate with the trial and appear as directed, refrain from inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The prosecution, investigating officer, or complainant was permitted to seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.