Grant of Bail for Sec. 69 BNS Offence Where Married Victim Engaged in Consensual Relationship.

The applicant filed his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the complainant for four months based on a false promise of marriage, leading to an FIR under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual, noting the victim is a married woman with two children who lodged the FIR only after discovering the applicant was also married.

The applicant has been in custody since 22/01/2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the consensual nature of the relationship.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantively, the case revolved around Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which penalizes sexual intercourse by deceitful means or making a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it.

The Court relied on the principle that the period of detention and the likelihood of a prolonged trial are valid considerations for the grant of bail.

The Court examined the specific circumstances of the case, noting that the victim was a married woman with children, holding employment as a security guard, which suggested a level of maturity and awareness.

The Court observed that the relationship appeared consensual and that the criminal complaint was triggered specifically when the victim learned of the applicant's existing marriage.

By weighing the fact that the applicant had been detained since January 2022 and that the conclusion of the trial would likely be delayed, the Court determined that continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The analysis balanced the liberty of the individual against the requirements of the trial by imposing strict conditions, such as personal presence during framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 of BNSS, to ensure the applicant's cooperation.

The holding clarified that the circumstances suggested a consensual relationship rather than a prima facie case of non-consensual deceit under Section 69 BNS.

The release was made subject to several conditions, including that the applicant must not seek unnecessary adjournments and must be present for all critical stages of the trial, with a warning that default would be treated as an abuse of liberty.