Anticipatory bail granted where a prolonged consensual relationship preceded an FIR after the relationship failed.

The applicant filed his first application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 706/2026 registered at Police Station Sakri, Bilaspur, for alleged offences under Sections 69 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, previously known to the complainant, induced her to accompany him and her three minor children on the promise of marriage. They travelled to several places, including Indore, Bhopal, Vadodara, Surat and Dongargarh, during which the applicant allegedly established physical relations with her against her will and without her consent, and threatened her concerning her children

The complainant further alleged that the applicant abandoned her and the children at a hotel in Dongargarh on 26 July 2026. Her complaint was lodged on 27 July 2026, leading to registration of the offence

The applicant denied sexual relations, deceitful inducement and any false promise of marriage, and contended that custodial detention was unwarranted

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with allegations under Sections 69 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the surrounding circumstances, including the parties’ prior acquaintance and alleged consensual relationship, justified extending the protection of anticipatory bail to the applicant?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, and considered the allegations under Sections 69 and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 69 BNS concerns sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or through a promise to marry made without the intention of fulfilling it; the applicant argued that the foundational requirement of a dishonest or false promise from inception was absent

In deciding anticipatory bail, the Court assessed the nature of the allegations, the surrounding circumstances, the parties’ relationship and whether custodial arrest was necessary. Bail was granted subject to conditions designed to prevent interference with the investigation or trial and to secure the applicant’s appearance before the trial court

The Court noted the applicant’s denial of sexual relations and deceitful inducement, as well as the parties’ prior acquaintance and extended association during which they travelled together to several places

On the material before it, the Court treated the relationship as consensual and found that the complainant was a consenting party to the physical relationship. It further considered that the complainant was a married woman with three children and that the relationship had not ultimately materialised, after which the FIR was lodged

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for protection from arrest, without finally determining the merits of the allegations or the applicant’s guilt.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Faizal Aibani be released on bail upon execution of a personal bond with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting threats or inducements to persons acquainted with the facts, conduct prejudicial to a fair trial, failure to appear before the trial court, non-submission or non-verification of identity documents, and involvement in a similar offence in the future