Bail granted where physical relations between major consenting adults was allegedly based on a breach of promise to marry.

The applicant, a member of the BSF, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS after being arrested on February 10, 2026, for offenses under Sections 332(B) and 64(2)(m) of the B.N.S.

The victim alleged that she entered a relationship with the applicant in 2023.

She claimed the applicant proposed marriage in April 2024 and established physical relations on multiple occasions.

On December 28, 2025, they reportedly married at a temple and later executed a notarized affidavit.

The victim filed a complaint after being denied entry into the applicant's home, discovering he was already married with children.

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual between two adults and that the victim was aware of his marital status.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the nature of the relationship and the victim's status as a major.

The court applied the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the grant of regular bail.

It also considered the elements of Sections 332(B) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertain to sexual intercourse by deceitful means and rape.

The court relied on the principle that if a relationship between two adults is consensual and the dispute arises from a failure to materialize a matrimonial union, the necessity for continued incarceration is diminished, especially after the filing of a charge sheet.

The Court observed that the victim is an adult who maintained a continuous relationship with the applicant from 2023 to 2026.

In examining the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the Court noted that the material suggested the victim was aware of the applicant's marital status during the course of their love affair.

The Court reasoned that the dispute appeared to stem from the relationship's failure to transition into a formal marriage rather than a lack of consent.

Furthermore, since the applicant had been in custody since February 10, 2026, and the charge sheet had already been filed, the Court determined that no further custodial interrogation was necessary and that the trial would take a considerable time to conclude.

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions: (i) he must not seek adjournments during witness presence; (ii) he must attend all trial dates personally or through counsel under penalty of Section 269 BNS; (iii) any misuse of liberty would trigger proceedings under Section 209 BNS; and (iv) personal appearance is mandatory for charge framing and recording statements under Section 351 BNSS.