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 1The 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 2When the applicant eventually refused to marry her and issued threats, she filed the FIR.
Source reference: para 2The 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 3Issues
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 & 5Law 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 1Section 183 of the BNSS regarding the recording of the victim's statement.
Source reference: para 5The 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 5Reasoning
The court examined the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS, noting she is a major (24 years old).
Source reference: para 5The 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 5It was reasoned that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship "could not materialize."
Source reference: para 5Finding 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 & 5Holding
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 6Original Court PDF
UMESH KUMAR SAHUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in