Anticipatory bail granted where a prolonged consensual relationship negated deceitful inducement under Section 69 BNS.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 166/2026 registered at Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The complainant alleged that she met the applicant through Facebook in November 2025 and that he assured her of marriage. They thereafter communicated regularly, travelled together to Ujjain and Sehore, stayed together, and developed a physical relationship on the alleged assurance of marriage

She alleged that after informing the applicant of her pregnancy on 25.07.2026 and requesting marriage, he refused, pressured her to terminate the pregnancy, and threatened her, leading to registration of the FIR dated 06.08.2026

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, that there was no dishonest intention from the inception, and that the FIR was lodged after the relationship failed

The State and the objector opposed the application

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the offence registered under Section 69 of the BNS

Whether the material on record prima facie indicated a consensual relationship and absence of deceitful inducement from the inception, warranting protection from arrest

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of anticipatory bail, and considered the allegation under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The Court assessed whether the relationship was consensual and whether the alleged promise of marriage was accompanied by deceitful intent from its inception, rather than treating the subsequent failure of the relationship, by itself, as sufficient to deny bail

The Court considered the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which indicated that she had communicated with the applicant, travelled with him, and stayed with him during the relevant period

On the materials before it, the Court found that the parties had remained in a consensual relationship for a substantial period and that the complainant was a consenting party to the physical relationship

It further accepted, at the anticipatory-bail stage, the applicant’s contention that the relationship had subsequently failed and that there was no apparent deceitful intention from its inception.

The Court therefore concluded that custodial arrest was not necessary and that the applicant deserved protection from arrest

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Hem Singh Rajput be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to persons acquainted with the facts; interference with a fair and expeditious trial; failure to appear before the trial Court on every date; submission and verification of Aadhaar and photograph documents; and involvement in any similar offence in the future