Bail warranted where an adult prosecutrix supports release and alleged taint in consent requires trial determination.

The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station Keshav Puram for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had been in a relationship with the prosecutrix for approximately eight years and had induced her to engage in sexual relations on a false assurance of marriage, but later refused to marry her on the ground of mismatch of horoscopes.

During proceedings concerning quashing of the FIR, the prosecutrix stated that she no longer wished to marry the petitioner and did not want him to remain incarcerated.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, she filed an affidavit stating that the relationship had been consensual since 2018, that the FIR arose from misunderstanding and misconception concerning marriage, and that the disputes had been amicably resolved.

She appeared before the Court and supported the grant of bail.

The State opposed bail, arguing that the case had become a State prosecution and that the prosecutrix could not unilaterally withdraw from it.

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail where the prosecutrix, a major, supports his release and states that the relationship was consensual and that the dispute arose from a misunderstanding concerning marriage.

Whether the State’s objection that the prosecutrix cannot withdraw from a State case, and the possibility that she may turn hostile during trial, justified continued incarceration of the petitioner.

Whether the alleged taint on the prosecutrix’s consent—namely, the alleged false assurance of marriage—was an issue requiring determination at trial rather than at the stage of bail.

The Court applied Section 69 of the BNS, under which sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means, including a false promise or assurance of marriage in the circumstances contemplated by the provision, may constitute an offence.

At the bail stage, the Court was required to assess whether continued detention was warranted without conclusively determining whether the relationship was consensual or whether the consent was vitiated by a false assurance of marriage.

The Court treated the prosecutrix as both a material witness and the alleged victim, and recognised that her stand was relevant to the bail assessment, although it could not terminate the State prosecution.

The ultimate question concerning the genuineness of consent and any alleged taint upon it was left for determination by the trial court on the basis of evidence.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the allegation and the State’s concern that the prosecutrix might later turn hostile, but held that these considerations did not, by themselves, justify further detention.

The prosecutrix was a major and, according to both the prosecution case and her affidavit, had been in an intimate relationship with the petitioner for approximately eight years.

Her affidavit did not state that her original complaint or investigative statements were false; rather, it explained that the complaint resulted from a misunderstanding and misconception relating to marriage and affirmed the consensual nature of the relationship.

The Court therefore considered her support for bail to be a relevant circumstance, while recognising that the question whether her consent had been vitiated by a false assurance of marriage could not be finally decided at the bail stage and would have to be tested at trial.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000, together with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

The Court further directed that a copy of the order be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent for informing the petitioner.