Anticipatory bail granted where consensual relationship between adults failed to culminate in marriage.

The prosecutrix (aged 27) filed an FIR alleging that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her on the false pretext of marriage between April 7, 2025, and October 11, 2025.

She further alleged that on October 11, 2025, the applicant refused to marry her and threatened her life.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the parties had actually solemnized a marriage at Shree Kile Ram Mandir on September 12, 2025, supported by an affidavit and subsequent registration.

The applicant argued that the FIR was a result of marital discord and noted a six-month delay in filing the report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in light of allegations of sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage.

The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

The substantive charges involved Sections 64(1) (rape), 64(2)(m) (reiterated rape/breach of trust), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court relied on the established legal principle that in cases of prolonged consensual relationships involving major parties, the failure of a promise to marry does not automatically equate to a lack of consent or "fraudulent intent" at the inception of the relationship.

The Court observed that both the applicant and the prosecutrix were adults (the victim being 27 years old) and were in a long-term consensual relationship.

It noted that physical relations were established during this period and the FIR was only lodged once the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.

The Court took into account the applicant's submission that a marriage ceremony had actually taken place and that the dispute appeared to be matrimonial in nature rather than purely criminal.

Consequently, the Court found that the facts did not prima facie suggest that consent was vitiated by fraud from the outset, thus reducing the necessity for custodial interrogation.

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on executing a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition against inducing or threatening witnesses.