Prolonged consensual relationship and prior complaints omitting sexual assault allegations negate prima facie case for rape.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 401/2025 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC

The prosecutrix alleged that after meeting in 2021, the petitioner established physical relations on a false promise of marriage starting in May 2023

An engagement ceremony was held in May 2024, but the relationship soured in March 2025 when the petitioner allegedly demanded a ₹10,00,000 dowry and fixed his marriage elsewhere

The petitioner argued the relationship was consensual over five years and highlighted that the prosecutrix's initial police complaint dated 22.07.2025 and an NCR dated 06.09.2025 mentioned a broken engagement and dowry demands but contained no allegations of sexual assault

Whether the physical relationship between the parties stemmed from a "misconception of fact" (false promise of marriage) or was a consensual relationship that failed to fructify into marriage

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail based on the nature of the allegations and prior conduct of the prosecutrix

The court primarily applied Section 438 of the CrPC/Section 482 of BNSS (Anticipatory Bail) and Section 376 of the IPC regarding rape.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which establish that if a physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period, it cannot be certain that consent was obtained solely through a false promise of marriage

The court noted that a breach of a promise to marry is not synonymous with a "false promise" made at the inception with the intent to deceive

The Court observed that the parties were in a long-term relationship of five years, characterized by emotional investment and ceremonial rites like the "Roka"

Crucially, the Court analyzed the prosecutrix’s communication to the SHO dated 22.07.2025, which stated she was "in love" and complained of dowry demands but was silent on sexual exploitation

This omission, combined with the subsequent NCR dated 06.09.2025 which only alleged physical assault, weakened the "false promise" claim for the purpose of bail

The Court reasoned that the physical intimacy appeared to be a product of a functioning relationship rather than a result of deceptive luring, and thus, giving a "colour of criminality" to a broken relationship at this stage was unjustified

Directing his release in the event of arrest upon a personal bond of ₹20,000, the Court imposed conditions including cooperation with the investigation and a prohibition on contacting the prosecutrix

The Court held that given the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents and the prima facie plausibility of a consensual relationship, custodial interrogation was not warranted