Anticipatory bail granted in Section 69 BNS case involving a consensual relationship between adults.

The applicant sought first anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 59/2026 for offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecutrix (aged 22) alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage between February 2025 and November 2025.

She claimed he subsequently refused to marry her and ceased communication, leading to an FIR being lodged on February 2, 2026.

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual, that the prosecutrix voluntarily stayed with him in hotels, and that the complaint was a malicious reaction to his marriage being fixed with another girl.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of allegations of physical relations on the promise of marriage.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail (successor to Section 438 CrPC).

It considered Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or a false promise to marry.

The court also relied on the principle of "consensual relationship among adults," distinguishing between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise" made with the intent to deceive from the inception, noting that the prosecutrix was a major and capable of free consent.

The Court examined the material on record, specifically the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS.

It observed that the victim was a major who was well-acquainted with the applicant and had engaged in a long-term consensual relationship.

The Court noted that the FIR appeared to be a consequence of the relationship failing to materialize into marriage rather than an initial intent to deceive.

Furthermore, the Court evaluated the defense's argument regarding the lack of medical evidence corroborating force and the significant delay in reporting the matter (incidents starting Feb 2025, FIR lodged Feb 2026), finding that the ingredients of a prima facie case for custodial interrogation were not overwhelmingly present.

It held that since the parties were in a consensual relationship and the victim was a major, the applicant was entitled to protection from arrest.

The applicant was directed to be released on a personal bond and one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, attendance at trial, and a prohibition against inducing or threatening witnesses.