Long-term sexual relationship between adults with knowledge of existing marriage is prima facie consensual.

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

He was arrested on March 16, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 14 of 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

The prosecutrix, aged 35, alleged that she had been in a physical relationship with the applicant since 2010 based on a promise of marriage, despite knowing he was already married.

She gave birth to a child in 2023, after which the applicant allegedly stopped communicating with her.

The applicant, a 55-year-old school administrator with no criminal antecedents, contended that the relationship was consensual for 15 years and the FIR was a result of a property dispute.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and the duration of the relationship.

2. Whether the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the ongoing investigation.

The court primarily applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The court considered the penal provisions of Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC regarding rape and repeated sexual intercourse with the same woman.

The court also relied on established bail principles: the nature of the accusation, the absence of criminal antecedents, the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, and the socio-economic roots of the applicant to mitigate flight risk.

The court examined the case diary and noted that the relationship between the two adults lasted approximately 15 years, which prima facie suggested a consensual nature rather than sexual exploitation under a false pretext of marriage.

The court observed that the investigation was substantially complete and the State fairly admitted that the applicant’s custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant, being 55 years old with family responsibilities and a clean record, posed no significant risk of recidivism, fleeing from justice, or tampering with evidence.

The court clarified that the ultimate veracity of the allegations would be a matter for trial.

The holding was contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce, threaten, or influence witnesses.

The court further directed that these conditions be reproduced on the bonds for the awareness of the accused and the surety.