Bail granted in alleged rape case involving consensual relationship with a major on pretext of marriage.

The applicant filed a First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The prosecution alleged that between November 2024 and December 2025, the applicant repeatedly raped the victim, a 21-year-old woman, under a false pretext of marriage and subsequently threatened to leak obscene media when she insisted on solemnizing the union

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and lasted for two years but failed to materialize into marriage, leading to the FIR

The applicant had been in custody since April 2, 2026, and the charge-sheet had already been filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage versus the defense of a long-term consensual relationship

2. Whether the period of detention and the filing of the charge-sheet justify the release of the applicant pending trial

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, governing the grant of regular bail

The substantive charges were under Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/promise to marry) and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The Court considered the legal principle that bail may be granted where the victim is a major and the evidence suggests a long-term consensual relationship that failed to result in marriage, distinguished from rape by fraud

The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant's right to liberty. It noted that the victim is an adult (21 years old) and had been in a relationship with the applicant for approximately two years

The Court observed that a consensual sexual relationship appeared to have been established during this period

Since the investigation was complete—as evidenced by the filing of the charge-sheet—and the applicant had been detained since April 2026, the Court reasoned that further incarceration was unnecessary, especially since the trial was expected to take considerable time

While the State opposed bail citing the threat of circulating obscene media, the Court found the applicant's prolonged detention and the nature of the prior relationship favored his release

The holding answered the issues in the affirmative, finding the applicant entitled to bail subject to strict conditions: he must not seek unnecessary adjournments [para 7(i)], must appear personally for key trial stages like framing of charges and recording of statements [para 7(iv)], and must comply with procedures under Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS/BNSS in case of default