Concealing a pre-existing domestic relationship with children while promising marriage establishes dishonest intention from inception.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 586/2025, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her starting in 2023 under a false promise of marriage

Following a pregnancy and subsequent termination in September 2025, the prosecutrix discovered she was pregnant again in October 2025

Upon demanding marriage, the applicant refused and revealed he was already married

Investigative reports revealed the applicant had two children with a woman named Zeenat Parveen, with whom he had performed a marriage ceremony and shared a residence

The applicant previously obtained interim protection from a Sessions Court by falsely claiming the prosecutrix was already married to another person

Despite notices issued under Section 84 of the BNSS, the applicant failed to join the investigation

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 69 of the BNS in light of allegations regarding a false promise of marriage and concealment of a prior marital/domestic relationship.

2. Whether the applicant’s conduct, including failure to join the investigation and attempting to mislead the court, precludes the exercise of discretionary relief.

The court primarily applied Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a promise to marry without the intention of fulfilling it

It further considered the procedural obligations under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the duty of an accused to join an investigation upon notice

The court relied on the principle that consent obtained under a "misconception of fact"—specifically a dishonest promise of marriage—vitiates the consensual nature of the act

The Court observed that the prosecutrix’s allegations were supported by material evidence indicating the applicant had a pre-existing domestic relationship and two children, facts which were suppressed from the prosecutrix

While the applicant contended the relationship was consensual and that he was merely in a live-in relationship with Zeenat Parveen, the Court found that the birth certificates and photographs of family ceremonies prima facie established a marital-like bond that the applicant intended to hide

The Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on WhatsApp chats, noting that the messages did not prove the prosecutrix was aware of his children or the extent of his prior commitment

Crucially, the Court highlighted the applicant's "dishonest intention from the inception," as he induced the prosecutrix into a physical relationship while maintaining a parallel family

The Court further noted that the applicant’s attempt to mislead the Sessions Court regarding the prosecutrix's marital status and his persistent non-cooperation with the investigation weighed heavily against his plea for equitable relief

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the application for anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the applicant's obstructive conduct

The application was rejected