Apparent consensuality may support bail, subject to independent determination at trial.

The applicant sought regular bail in FIR No. 367/2026, Police Station Sultanpuri, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant misrepresented himself as unmarried, had sexual relations with her after assuring her of marriage, and had taken photographs or videos of her.

The applicant contended that their relationship was consensual and that the present FIR followed an earlier FIR lodged by his wife concerning an assault on him by the prosecutrix’s family.

The prosecutrix, aged 24, opposed release on the ground that the applicant might contact or pressure her.

The applicant had been in custody since 30 June 2026, and the chargesheet had been filed.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the alleged relationship, the period of custody, and filing of the chargesheet.

2. Whether the prosecutrix’s apprehension of further contact or pressure warranted refusing bail or imposing a protective condition.

The application concerned an alleged offence under Section 69 BNS.

In deciding bail, the Court assessed the circumstances placed before it, including the allegations and their apparent context, the applicant’s custody, the filing of the chargesheet, and the stated concerns of the prosecutrix.

No precedent was cited.

The Court expressly confined its observations about the apparently consensual nature of the relationship to the bail application and left the trial court to assess the evidence independently.

The Court considered the parties’ history and noted that the prosecutrix had blocked and later unblocked the applicant, had met him, and had invited him to her home before the alleged sexual intercourse.

It also noted uncertainty about how she learned of, and was later persuaded to doubt, his marital status, as well as the absence of forensic retrieval from the applicant’s broken phone of the alleged photographs or videos.

On that material, the Court found substance in the applicant’s submission that the relationship appeared consensual for the limited purpose of bail, while expressly reserving the trial court’s independent assessment.

Given that the applicant had been in custody since 30 June 2026 and the chargesheet had been filed, the Court found no reason to continue depriving him of liberty; it addressed the prosecutrix’s concern through a condition barring contact.

It further directed that any attempt to contact the prosecutrix or her family would attract strict consequences in accordance with law, and ordered that the Jail Superintendent be sent a copy of the order.