Prolonged consensual relationship and failed marriage promise warranted grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 286/2026 registered at Police Station Malkharoda, District Sakti, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, who was known to the victim, established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, continued the relationship on that assurance, and subsequently took her to Jammu.

After the victim insisted upon marriage, the applicant allegedly returned with her to Sakti and abandoned her before fleeing.

The victim thereafter informed her parents, leading to registration of the FIR.

The applicant denied the allegations and claimed false implication arising from prior enmity between the two families.

He relied on the parties’ continued contact, the victim’s accompanying him to Jammu, the absence of any attempt by her to seek help during that period, and the alleged delay in lodging the FIR.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, relying upon the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which attributed the alleged acts to the applicant and stated that he had left her at Sakti Railway Station on 2 July 2026.

1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the offences alleged under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the BNS.

2. Whether the circumstances, including the parties’ continuing relationship and the victim’s alleged consent, justified extending the benefit of anticipatory bail despite the allegation that physical relations were induced by a promise of marriage.

The Court applied Section 482 of the BNSS, which empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged offences were under Sections 64(2)(m) and 87 of the BNS.

In assessing the bail request, the Court considered the surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the relationship, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, and whether custodial arrest was warranted.

The Court relied on its assessment that the relationship had been consensual for a substantial period and that the victim had participated in the physical relationship.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court considered the prosecution allegations and the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, but focused on the undisputed circumstances that the applicant and victim knew each other, remained in contact, travelled together to Jammu, resided there together, and continued their physical relationship over a period of time.

It concluded that the victim had been a consenting party to the relationship and that the FIR was lodged after the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.

On that assessment, the Court found the case appropriate for protection from arrest under Section 482 of the BNSS and held that anticipatory bail could be granted.

The Court directed that, in the event of arrest, Puna Kurre be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; non-appearance before the trial court; submission and verification of Aadhaar documents and photographs of the applicant and sureties; and involvement in any similar offence in the future.