Bail granted where physical relations with a major were established through long-term mutual consent despite marriage promise.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest on February 5, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 111/2026

The prosecution alleged that the applicant developed a relationship with the victim (a divorcee with a 15-year-old child) while she was a tenant in his house between 2016 and 2018

It was alleged that the applicant established physical relations under a false promise of marriage, leading to a terminated pregnancy

The defense contended that the relationship was consensual and the FIR was a retaliatory measure lodged only after the victim learned of the applicant's impending marriage to another woman

The charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has no prior criminal record

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the allegations of establishing physical relations on a false promise of marriage under Section 69 of the BNS

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

The substantive offence was governed by Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it

The Court also referenced procedural compliance under Sections 269 (non-attendance) and 209 (failure to appear after proclamation) of the BNS, and Section 84 (proclamation for person absconding) and Section 351 (accused's statement) of the BNSS

The Court evaluated the "nature and gravity of the offence" against the specific circumstances of the case, notably the prolonged duration of the relationship (2016–2018) and the victim’s maturity as a mother of a 15-year-old

The Court observed that the victim appeared to be a "consenting party" during the period of cohabitation

It noted the significant delay in filing the FIR, which coincided with the applicant’s marriage to another woman, suggesting an "intention to harass"

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed and the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the Court determined that continued detention was unnecessary during the trial

The Court allowed the application and directed the release of Irfan Bakshi on regular bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties

The bail is subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments, mandatory presence at trial milestones (framing of charges, Section 351 BNSS statement), and penalties for violating liberty under Sections 209 and 269 of the BNS