Prolonged consensual relationship and subsequent refusal to marry do not establish rape absent initial fraudulent intent.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 543 of 2025, registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Deorania, District Bareilly.

The prosecution case arose from an allegation by the informant-victim that the applicant had established a physical relationship with her on a false promise of marriage.

The applicant contended that the victim was a major woman of approximately 25 years of age and that the parties had remained in contact and maintained a consensual relationship for about seven years, after which the relationship deteriorated and the FIR was lodged.

The applicant further submitted that his arrest had earlier been stayed by a Division Bench, that the charge-sheet had been filed on 10 April 2026, and that cognizance had been taken without any requirement for custodial interrogation.

He also relied on the absence of criminal antecedents and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State opposed the application but did not dispute the factual submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the filing of the charge-sheet without his arrest?

Whether the alleged sexual relationship, maintained between two adults for approximately seven years, prima facie indicated consensual relations arising from a failed relationship rather than sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage?

Whether, following submission of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, custodial interrogation or arrest of the applicant was necessary?

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS governing anticipatory bail and considered the settled principles relating to arrest after filing of a charge-sheet.

Relying on Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, it held that where the accused was not arrested during investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the filing of the charge-sheet by itself should not ordinarily result in arrest or incarceration; the court should ordinarily issue summons unless reasons exist for issuing warrants.

The Court relied on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 11 SCC 398, Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 197, Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 154, and Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1055, for the principle that a prolonged relationship between consenting adults may indicate voluntary consent and that a subsequent breakdown or refusal to marry does not, without more, constitute rape.

Under Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, a promise to marry constitutes a false promise only where the maker had no intention to honour it from the inception; a mere subsequent breach of promise is insufficient.

The Court also relied on Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, concerning consensual relationships later converted into criminal proceedings following refusal to marry.

The Court considered the victim’s age, the parties’ prolonged association and physical relationship over approximately seven years, and the absence of any material disputed by the State suggesting coercion or lack of consent during that period.

Applying the principles governing false promises of marriage, the Court treated the allegations, at the anticipatory-bail stage, as capable of indicating a consensual adult relationship that subsequently became acrimonious, rather than a relationship induced from its inception by a knowingly false promise.

The Court also noted that the applicant had not been arrested during investigation, had earlier enjoyed protection from arrest, and that the charge-sheet had already been filed; consequently, custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court held that the applicant’s case was covered by the cited precedents and that a case for anticipatory bail was made out.

In the event of arrest or appearance, the applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail until conclusion of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

He was directed to cooperate with the trial and appear before the court as required, not to induce, threaten or influence persons acquainted with the facts of the case, and not to leave India without prior permission of the court.

In case of breach or misuse of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor, Investigating Officer, or first informant-complainant was given liberty to seek cancellation of bail.