Prolonged consensual adult relationships, absent deception from inception, do not constitute rape.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 222 of 2026, registered at Police Station Saidnagali, District Amroha, under Sections 69, 64(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution arose from an allegation of rape on a promise of marriage.

The applicant argued that the complainant was an adult, that they had been in a consensual relationship for about two years, and that the FIR followed the breakdown of the relationship; he also disputed the complainant’s age and relied on the absence of criminal antecedents and his undertaking to cooperate.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the factual aspects advanced by the applicant; the informant did not appear despite service of notice.

The Court considered the application without expressing an opinion on the merits.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the accusation, the alleged prolonged relationship, and the circumstances presented, the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail.

Whether the applicant’s arrest was justified in light of the governing principles on anticipatory bail and the need for arrest during investigation.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for anticipatory bail.

Under Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court considers, among other matters, the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant’s role, the risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the risk of flight.

Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh holds that the existence of a lawful power to arrest does not make arrest automatic; arrest should be justified by the needs of investigation or risks such as absconding or influencing witnesses.

The Court also relied on authorities concerning allegations arising from relationships and promises of marriage, including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes a promise made in bad faith from a mere breach of promise.

The other cited authorities, including Mahesh Damu Khare, Prashant, Samadhan, Rajnish Singh, Pramod Kumar Navratna, Ravish Singh Rana, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar and Kunal Chatterjee, were relied upon for the propositions that a prolonged relationship does not, without more, establish that consent was vitiated by a false promise from the outset, and that allegations must be assessed in their factual and evidentiary context.

The Court considered the parties’ submissions and the record alongside the settled factors governing anticipatory bail.

The applicant’s case was that the complainant was an adult and had maintained a consensual relationship with him for an extended period, while the FIR followed the relationship’s breakdown; the State did not dispute the factual aspects raised.

Applying the cited principles concerning arrest and allegations based on a promise of marriage, the Court found that the applicant’s case was covered by the cited authorities and that the circumstances supported anticipatory bail.

It expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the allegations.

In the event of arrest, the applicant is to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

He must cooperate with the investigation, refrain from threatening or inducing persons acquainted with the case, and not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

The prosecution, Investigating Officer or first informant may seek cancellation of bail in the event of breach or misuse of the conditions.