Anticipatory bail granted where a delayed FIR followed a consensual relationship that failed to culminate in marriage.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 184/2026 registered at Police Station Pasan, District Korba, for offences under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

The prosecution alleged that the applicant had sexual intercourse with the victim on 10 March 2025 at her rented room, and that she lodged the report on 15 July 2026

The applicant contended that he and the major victim had known each other since 2021, were in a consensual relationship, and had allegedly solemnised marriage on 26 December 2023, thereafter living together as husband and wife with the knowledge of their families

He further relied on the delay of approximately one year and four months in lodging the FIR, the absence of injuries in the medical examination, and proceedings initiated by him before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 100 and 101 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)

The State opposed anticipatory bail, asserting that the applicant had established sexual relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage

1. Whether, considering the allegations, the victim’s statement, the alleged consensual relationship, and the surrounding circumstances, the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS

2. Whether the applicant should be protected from arrest subject to conditions intended to secure a fair investigation and trial

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest for a non-bailable offence

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the BNS

In deciding the application, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the parties’ status as major persons, the alleged consensual relationship, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case

The Court found from the victim’s statement and the case diary that the victim was a major, that the parties had known each other for approximately four years, and that they had been in a consensual relationship involving a physical relationship

The Court also considered the applicant’s contention regarding the parties’ alleged marriage, the substantial delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of injuries, although it did not make a final determination on the merits

It observed that the FIR appeared to have been lodged after the relationship allegedly failed to culminate in marriage and, without expressing any final opinion on the merits, concluded that the circumstances justified protection from arrest

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Dinesh Kumar Uike be released on anticipatory bail upon execution of a personal bond and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

The relief was subject to conditions that he must not influence or threaten witnesses, prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, appear before the trial court on every date, submit Aadhaar documents and a coloured postcard-size photograph for verification, and not commit any similar offence in future