Chhattisgarh High Court

Anticipatory bail granted as prolonged consensual relationship between adults does not constitute rape under pretext of marriage.

UMESH KUMAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: April 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 120/2026 involving allegations under Sections 376(2)(n), 457, and 506 of the IPC.

Source reference: para 1

The prosecutrix alleged that on June 19, 2022, the applicant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her under a false promise of marriage and continued the relationship until March 2026.

Source reference: para 2

When the applicant eventually refused to marry her and issued threats, she filed the FIR.

Source reference: para 2

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and lasted seven years, only turning into a criminal complaint after the relationship failed to materialize into marriage.

Source reference: para 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the consensual history of the parties.

Source reference: para 1 & 5
03

Law Applied

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest.

Source reference: para 1

Section 183 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the victim's statement.

Source reference: para 5

The established principle that a long-term consensual relationship between adults, even if premised on a promise of marriage that later fails, may mitigate the necessity of custodial interrogation depending on the specific facts of the case.

Source reference: para 5
04

Reasoning

The court examined the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, noting she is a major (24 years old).

Source reference: para 5

The court observed that the parties had been in a relationship for seven years and that the physical relationship appeared to be consensual during that period.

Source reference: para 5

It was reasoned that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship "could not materialize."

Source reference: para 5

Finding no immediate risk of the applicant absconding and noting his willingness to abide by court conditions, the court determined that the circumstances did not warrant custodial detention at this stage.

Source reference: para 3 & 5
05

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

It held that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on a personal bond with one surety. The relief was granted subject to conditions, including that the applicant shall not influence witnesses, shall appear for all trial dates, shall submit Aadhaar verification, and shall not commit any similar future offences.

Source reference: para 6
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

UMESH KUMAR SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · April 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment