Anticipatory bail granted in consensual relationship where sexual exploitation allegations arose from a financial dispute.

The applicant, a 40-year-old businessman, filed a first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The complainant, a 30-year-old woman, alleged that the applicant entered into a consensual sexual relationship with her in 2021 on the promise of marriage.

She further alleged that the applicant took approximately Rs. 17.79 Lakhs from her, but later refused to marry her or return the money, eventually issuing four cheques totaling Rs. 15 Lakhs which were subsequently dishonored.

FIR No. 15/2026 was registered under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage), 318(4) (cheating), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail considering the allegations of sexual exploitation on a false promise of marriage and financial fraud.

2. Whether the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the investigation.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or promise to marry without intention to fulfill it, alongside Section 318(4) for cheating.

Traditional bail jurisprudence regarding the absence of criminal antecedents, the socio-economic status of the applicant, and the likelihood of fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The court observed that the relationship between the parties appeared to be a long-standing, consensual interaction between two adults.

It noted that the dispute initially appeared financial in nature, as evidenced by prior settlements at another police station where the applicant issued cheques to repay the complainant.

The court highlighted that when these cheques were dishonored, the complainant filed the current FIR alleging sexual exploitation.

The court reasoned that since the investigation was nearing completion and no criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant, his custodial interrogation was not required.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant’s willingness to deposit Rs. 12 Lakhs demonstrated bona fides, and incarceration would cause undue social disrepute and hardship.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant depositing Rs. 12,00,000 before the trial court to be kept in an interest-bearing Fixed Deposit.

The applicant was further directed to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from inducing or threatening witnesses.

The court held that the grant of bail would not prejudice a fair investigation and would remain effective until the end of the trial.