Consensual relationship between married adults negates prima facie charge of sexual intercourse on promise to marry.

The applicant, Ramsingh Gurjar, was arrested on February 17, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 07/2026 registered at Police Station Kaytha, District Ujjain.

The complainant, a 31-year-old mother of four, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the applicant since 2023.

She claimed the applicant proposed marriage and encouraged her to divorce her husband, leading to physical relations based on the promise of marriage.

Following her divorce, the applicant allegedly refused to marry her.

The applicant moved for regular bail, contending that the relationship was consensual between adults who were both married at the inception of their acquaintance, and that the allegations were intended to pressurize him into marriage.

The investigation is complete, and the final report (charge sheet) has been submitted.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the relationship and the stage of the criminal proceedings.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the grant of regular bail.

The substantive offences were registered under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/false promise to marry), 296(b) (obscene acts), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court relied on the principle that bail may be granted where the investigation is complete, the trial is expected to take time, and there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence.

The court noted that the case involved a long-term relationship between "worldly-wise adults" who were both married when the relationship commenced.

It observed that the applicant’s argument—that the victim was aware of his existing marriage, thus negating a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation to marry—carried prima facie merit.

The court highlighted that since the final report had been submitted, the applicant’s continued incarceration was not required for investigation.

Furthermore, the State confirmed the applicant had no prior criminal record.

The court reasoned that in the absence of any history of evading the law or evidence of potential witness tampering, the applicant, who has family responsibilities and roots in the community, did not pose a flight risk.

The court clarified that the veracity of the victim's accusations would be determined during the trial.

The holding was contingent on several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

The court further specified that the trial court may consider the cancellation of bail if any conditions are breached.