Consensual Relationship Between Adults Cannot Be Termed Sexual Exploitation on False Pretext of Marriage.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Crime No. 10/2026 registered at Mahila Thana Kawardha.

The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her from July 2024 onwards on a false promise of marriage.

She further alleged that she became pregnant twice and the applicant facilitated terminations, and later assaulted and threatened her when pressured to marry.

The applicant contended that they were in a consensual relationship as consenting adults and had even performed a social marriage ceremony, but the prosecutrix later left due to family/caste concerns.

The applicant further alleged that the FIR was a "counterblast" to a prior harassment complaint filed by his father.

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of a long-term relationship between two adults, the applicant is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail for offences involving sexual exploitation on the pretext of marriage.

Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the grant of anticipatory bail.

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse by "deceitful means" or on a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it, alongside Sections 81 (causing miscarriage), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS.

The principle that consensual relationships between adults, even if they do not culminate in marriage, may not inherently constitute an offense under Section 69 BNS in the absence of evidence of initial fraudulent intent.

The Court examined the case diary and the nature of the allegations and observed that the victim and the applicant were both majors who had been in an established relationship for a significant period.

The Court reasoned that the relationship appeared to be consensual in nature.

It noted that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship failed to culminate in marriage and the applicant allegedly refused to marry the prosecutrix.

Given the consensual history and the specific context of the dispute, the Court found it unnecessary to deny liberty during the investigative phase, particularly as the merits of the "false promise" versus "consensual breakdown" would be subject to trial.

The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a personal bond with one surety, subject to conditions including non-interference with witnesses, regular appearances before the trial court, and a prohibition against committing similar future offenses.