Adult education and dating app origins preclude claim of sexual relations under misconception of marriage.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 594/2024 (PS Malviya Nagar) involving allegations of deceitful sexual relations and financial fraud

The prosecutrix, a 26-year-old B.Tech graduate, met the applicant on the dating app ‘Bumble’ in October 2024, where he allegedly promised marriage

They entered a live-in relationship at her flat, during which the applicant allegedly took approximately Rs. 8,80,000 via direct payments and loans

The applicant left the flat on 29.11.2024 after a dispute regarding repayment and allegations of him being involved with another woman

The FIR was registered on 28.12.2024, and the applicant remained in custody from that date

Despite multiple notices and passing over of the matter, the prosecutrix failed to appear or respond to the Investigating Officer’s calls

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the relationship and the prosecutrix's conduct during the proceedings

2. Whether the sexual relations can be prima facie deemed consensual given the parties met on a dating app and are educated adults

The Court considered Sections 69 (Sexual intercourse by deceitful means) and 316(2) (Criminal breach of trust) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court applied the principle that in bail matters, the educational background of the parties, the specific nature of the platform where they met (dating vs. matrimonial apps), the consensual nature of live-in relationships between adults, and the conduct of the prosecutrix regarding the prosecution of the case are vital factors in determining the necessity of continued incarceration

The Court observed that the prosecutrix showed a lack of interest in opposing the bail, failing to respond to judicial notices or the Investigating Officer’s attempts to contact her

Analyzing the merits, the Court noted that the prosecutrix is a "grown up and educated lady," and emphasized that Bumble is a "dating app and not a matrimonial app," which suggests she was not under a mistaken impression regarding the relationship's nature

The Court highlighted that the parties were in a live-in relationship where sexual relations appeared consensual

The Court found the one-month delay in filing the FIR after the applicant deserted the prosecutrix to be unexplained

The applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court

The Court inferred from the prosecutrix’s absence that she had no objection to the grant of bail