Consensual relationship between adults and lack of medical corroboration justify bail under Section 69 BNS.

The applicant filed his first bail application following his arrest on 25.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 53/2026.

The victim, a 20-year-old woman, alleged that she entered a relationship with the 23-year-old applicant via Instagram two years prior.

She claimed that on 12.05.2025, the applicant established physical relations with her on a false pretext of marriage, which continued at various locations.

She further alleged that on 21.01.2026, the applicant again established physical relations, and upon her objection to his refusal to marry, he abused and assaulted her.

A written complaint was lodged on 25.01.2026.

The applicant contended that the relationship was entirely consensual between two adults, noting a seven-month delay in reporting the initial incident and an inconclusive medical report.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in light of the allegations of sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage under Section 69 of the BNS.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offences were considered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/promise to marry), Section 296 (obscene acts), and Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt).

The court also referred to the evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 CrPC) and the necessity of medical corroboration in sexual offence cases.

The Court observed that both the victim and the applicant are adults (aged 20 and 23 respectively) who were in a relationship for approximately two years.

It noted significant weaknesses in the prosecution's case, specifically that the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS did not fully support the allegations made in the FIR.

The Court highlighted that the medical evidence (MLC report) failed to corroborate the prosecution's story, as the doctor offered no definite opinion on the sexual encounter.

The Court found the seven-month delay in lodging the FIR from the date of the first incident to be a material factor.

Since the charge-sheet had already been submitted and the applicant had been in custody since 25.01.2026, the Court reasoned that further incarceration was unwarranted, especially as the trial would take time to conclude and the relationship appeared prima facie consensual.

The Court held that the factors of the parties being majors, the consensual nature of their long-term relationship, and the lack of medical corroboration justified the grant of bail.

The release was made subject to several conditions, including a prohibition on seeking unnecessary adjournments and a requirement for the applicant to appear personally during key trial stages such as the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.