Grant of regular bail for long-term sexual relations between consenting adults on false promise of marriage.

The applicant, Gopilal Yadav, filed a First Bail Application seeking regular bail following his arrest on January 10, 2026.

The complainant, the applicant’s sister-in-law (widow of his late brother), alleged that following her husband’s death, she received a claim amount of ₹18,00,000.

She stated that the applicant, despite being married, engaged in sexual relations with her between August 10, 2018, and September 20, 2025, under the pretext of marriage and a promise to divorce his wife.

Consequently, an FIR (Crime No. 728/2025) was registered for offenses punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated and that the victim, a 32-year-old major, was a consenting party.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the nature of the allegations and the period of detention.

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

Substantively, the case involved Section 64(1) (punishment for rape) and Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court also referenced Section 269 of the BNS regarding non-appearance and Section 84 of the BNSS regarding proclamations for absconding persons.

The Court evaluated the facts and circumstances, specifically noting the gravity of the allegations balanced against the applicant's period of detention since January 10, 2026.

The Court observed that the victim is a 32-year-old major, which prima facie suggested that "forceful intercourse against her will and consent" was unlikely given the prolonged duration of the relationship (approximately seven years).

The Court further considered that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was expected to take a considerable amount of time.

It determined that under these circumstances, and without commenting on the final merits, continued incarceration was not warranted.

The holding clarified that the applicant is entitled to bail subject to strict conditions, including: (i) no adjournments during witness testimony; (ii) mandatory presence on all trial dates; and (iii) strict compliance with appearances during charge framing and Section 351 BNSS statements.

Default in these conditions authorizes the trial court to treat the bail as abused and proceed according to law.