Anticipatory bail is warranted where a prolonged consensual relationship lacks evidence of a false promise from inception.

The applicant, Sadik, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 333 of 2025, Police Station Teelamod, District Ghaziabad, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), alleging rape on the false promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the informant-victim was a major, that the parties had remained in contact and maintained a consensual relationship for approximately one year, and that the FIR was lodged after the relationship deteriorated.

He further relied on alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s version, absence of medical corroboration, the delay in lodging the FIR, and his lack of criminal antecedents.

During investigation, the applicant was not arrested, as his arrest had been stayed by a Division Bench on 26 September 2025. The police subsequently filed the charge-sheet, and the court concerned took cognizance on 29 April 2026.

The applicant undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial and to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under Section 69 BNS arising from an allegedly consensual, prolonged relationship between two adults and a subsequent allegation of a false promise of marriage.

2. Whether the filing of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance justified the applicant’s arrest when he had not been arrested during investigation.

3. Whether, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the applicant’s cooperation, absence of criminal antecedents, and the surrounding circumstances, the protection of anticipatory bail should continue until conclusion of trial.

The Court applied Section 69 BNS concerning sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage, and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) governing anticipatory bail.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Court held that where an accused has not been arrested during investigation and the charge-sheet has been filed, the accused should ordinarily be summoned rather than arrested, and non-arrest during investigation is a relevant circumstance supporting bail.

The Court relied on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398; Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764; Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528; Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 (4) SCC 197; Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154; and Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055, for the principles that a prolonged relationship and continued physical association between consenting adults may indicate voluntary consent, and that a subsequent failure to marry does not by itself establish rape unless the promise was false from its inception and made with a deceptive intention.

The Court also applied Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, distinguishing a false promise made without intention to perform from a mere breach of promise, and relied on Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, concerning consensual relationships that later become acrimonious.

The Court found that the applicant’s case was prima facie covered by the principles governing prolonged consensual relationships between adults.

The victim was stated to be a major and had remained in contact with the applicant for about one year; the Court considered the continued relationship, the alleged delay in reporting, the absence of medical corroboration, and the deterioration of the relationship as circumstances supporting the applicant’s contention that the prosecution arose from a broken relationship rather than from sexual intercourse procured by a promise known to be false from its inception.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court also gave weight to the fact that the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, that the charge-sheet had already been filed, that cognizance had been taken, and that he had no criminal antecedents.

Applying the rule in Aman Preet Singh, the Court held that the subsequent filing of the charge-sheet did not, by itself, warrant arrest and incarceration.

On the totality of the circumstances, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail.

In the event of arrest or appearance, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

He was directed to cooperate during trial and appear before the court as and when required.

He was directed to refrain from inducing, threatening, or influencing persons acquainted with the facts of the case.

He was directed not to leave India without prior permission of the court.

In the event of breach or misuse of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer, or first informant-complainant was given liberty to seek cancellation of anticipatory bail.