Consent of married adult negates rape charge on promise of marriage where relationship appears prima-facie consensual.

The applicant, a 22-year-old driver, was arrested on 26/12/2025 in connection with Crime No. 791/2025.

The complainant’s husband reported her missing on 18/12/2025.

Upon recovery, the victim initially stated she left voluntarily due to her liking for the applicant and that no misdeed occurred.

Subsequently, she alleged that the applicant had physical relations with her on a promise of marriage after divorcing his wife.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending the relationship was consensual between married adults and the allegations were pressured by family members.

The final report has been submitted, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 439 of the CrPC], governing the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges were under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also referenced Section 346 of the BNSS [formerly Section 309 of the CrPC] regarding the requirement for continuous trial proceedings.

The court observed that the victim's initial statement indicated a voluntary departure to various places with the applicant, suggesting a prima facie consensual element.

It noted that the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence.

The court evaluated the applicant's socio-economic status as a young driver with family responsibilities and a clean record, concluding there was no likelihood of recidivism or flight risk.

The court reasoned that since the trial would take time and the offense was not classified as "heinous or brutal" in a manner affecting society at large, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The bail is subject to conditions including mandatory appearance at hearings, non-commission of similar offenses, and no tampering with witnesses or evidence.

The court held that while the veracity of the prosecution's claims would be tested at trial, the applicant met the criteria for release at this stage.