Facts
The accused-applicant sought pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in connection with allegations of sexual exploitation under the false promise of marriage.
Source reference: p. 1-2The Informant, Dr. Jeshie Kalita, alleged that she and the applicant were in a relationship since March 2020, during which the applicant promised marriage via an engagement ring and a written declaration on stamp paper dated September 13, 2020.
Source reference: p. 2She claimed her consent for physical intimacy was vitiated by this false promise and that she was later coerced into terminating a pregnancy in July 2024, after which the applicant refused to marry her.
Source reference: p. 2-3The applicant contended the relationship was voluntary, consensual, and lasted five years, but soured due to emotional conflicts and his increased family responsibilities following his father’s death.
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the physical relationship between the parties was based on a "false promise" of marriage intended to deceive the informant from the inception, or was it a consensual relationship that later failed.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 112. Whether the accused-applicant is entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Source reference: p. 8 / para. 15Law Applied
The Court primarily relied on Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 438 of the CrPC) regarding anticipatory bail.
Source reference: p. 7-8It applied the legal principle established in *Pramod Kumar Navaratna v. State of Chhattisgarh* (2026 Online SC 154) and *Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi* (2025) 5 SCC 764, which hold that a mere breach of a promise to marry or the breakdown of a consensual relationship does not automatically constitute the offense of rape or criminal exploitation.
Source reference: p. 7-8The court distinguished this from *Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh* (2019) 13 SCC 1, noting that criminality arises only if the promise was dishonest from the very inception.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Court observed that both parties are educated majors who engaged in a five-year courtship characterized by voluntary and consensual intimacy.
Source reference: p. 6-7Upon reviewing WhatsApp messages and the case diary, the Court found no prima facie evidence of coercion or force; rather, the Informant actively participated in the relationship, including traveling with the applicant’s family to Delhi.
Source reference: p. 7The Court noted the applicant’s signed declaration of intent to marry was made "out of emotion" at a time when he intended to marry her, but circumstances changed following his father's demise and subsequent misunderstandings.
Source reference: p. 7The Court reasoned that a failed relationship should not be given a "color of criminality" solely because it did not fructify into marriage, as there was no evidence the applicant's intention was dishonest from the beginning.
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Court answered the issues in favor of the applicant, holding that the physical relationship was consensual and lacked the deceptive intent required for criminal prosecution under Sections 64 or 69 of the BNS.
Consequently, the Court made the interim protection order dated January 30, 2026, absolute, allowing the anticipatory bail application on the same terms and conditions.
Source reference: p. 8-9The applicant was directed to continue cooperating with the investigation.
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Kaushik Das v. The State of Assam [AB/163/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in