Physical Evidence of Sexual Relationship and Premature Stage of Investigation Preclude Anticipatory Bail Under Section 69 BNS

The applicant, Shyam Singh, sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 0101 of 2026, dated 07.05.2026, registered at P.S. Nanakmatta. He was implicated under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The applicant contended that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained five-year delay and was intended to pressure him into marriage

The State argued that the applicant planned and executed a deceptive marriage to establish physical relations, supported by a medical report confirming a torn hymen

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail based on the parameters of personal liberty and the alleged lack of intent to deceive under Section 69 of BNS 2023?

2. Whether the allegations and medical evidence prima facie justify the denial of pre-arrest bail at the preliminary stage of investigation?

Section 69 of the BNS 2023 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/promise to marry).

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, which mandates balancing the nature of the accusation, the possibility of fleeing, and the genuineness of the prosecution

Distinction between a "false promise" (deceit from the inception) and a "breach of promise" (unforeseen inability to marry) as settled in Mahesh Dam Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398 and Pramod Suryabhan Panwar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608

The Court evaluated the applicant's argument that the sexual relationship was consensual and the FIR was a "bundle of lies" to force marriage

The Court distinguished the present case from the cited precedents; specifically, it noted that in Mahesh Dam Khare, the trial had concluded, whereas this investigation is in its preliminary stages

The Court focused on the gravity of the State's allegation that the applicant used an "organized manner" to first simulate a marriage to develop physical relations

By connecting the specific medical evidence (the torn hymen) with the nature of the accusations under Section 69 BNS, the court determined that the ingredients of the offence were sufficiently present at this stage to outweigh the applicant’s plea for personal liberty

The Court found no "good ground" to grant relief. The anticipatory bail application was dismissed