Anticipatory bail granted for Section 69 BNS offence involving prolonged consensual relationship between mature adults.

The applicant, a 49-year-old businessman, filed his first anticipatory bail application regarding Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Police Station Women Cell, Ratlam

The complainant, a 38-year-old mother of two, alleged that the applicant established a physical relationship with her over a period of two years based on a false promise of marriage

She specifically cited an incident on February 10, 2026, at a hotel where sexual relations occurred, following which the applicant refused marriage, stating he was already married

The FIR was lodged on February 28, 2026, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual and the FIR was a retaliatory measure

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the allegations of sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage

Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary given the circumstances of the relationship and the delay in lodging the FIR

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

the substantive offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which pertains to sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention to fulfill it

The court also relied on established principles regarding the necessity of incarceration, the risk of the accused fleeing from justice, and the potential for tampering with evidence in the context of adult consensual relationships

The court noted that both parties are "worldly-wide adults" (aged 38 and 49) who were involved in a long-standing relationship

It observed that the FIR was delayed by eighteen days after the specific incident alleged, lending prima facie substance to the applicant's claim that the charges arose after the relationship turned sour

The court emphasized that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and, given his socio-economic status as a businessman, there is no likelihood of him fleeing or tampering with evidence

Furthermore, the court found that custodial interrogation was not required for the purpose of the investigation and that incarceration would result in unnecessary social disrepute and humiliation

It ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of the same amount

This relief was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must cooperate with the investigation, shall not commit similar offences, and shall not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, provided the bail conditions are not breached