Regular bail granted under Section 69 BNS where prolonged live-in relationship indicates consensual relations between educated adults.

The petitioner sought regular bail regarding FIR No. 94/2026 registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The prosecutrix alleged that she was in a romantic relationship with the accused since 2023 and lived in his home from January 2025 to September 2025 to care for his ailing sister

She claimed they engaged in multiple instances of sexual intercourse based on a promise of marriage

Furthermore, she alleged the accused failed to return jewellery worth ₹50,000 and ₹20,000 in cash

The petitioner contended the relationship was a consensual live-in arrangement and that marriage was never promised, citing transcripts of the prosecutrix using abusive language against his mother as the reason for the relationship’s breakdown

The State presented an audio-visual clip allegedly containing a promise of marriage

1. Whether the accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 69 of the BNS, considering the nature of the relationship and the evidence regarding the alleged promise of marriage.

The court considered Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to sexual intercourse by deceitful means or making a promise to marry without intention to fulfill it

The court also applied general principles governing the grant of regular bail, focusing on the maturity and education of the prosecutrix, the duration of the cohabitation, and the potential risk of the accused interfering with the complainant if released

The court observed that the audio-visual recording provided by the Investigating Officer did not prima facie depict a clear promise to marry; rather, it showed the accused speaking in an annoyed tone, suggesting marriage only on the condition that the lady stopped bothering him

The court noted that this recording was made in September 2025, long after the sexual relations had commenced in January 2025

While refraining from a final determination on whether the consent was obtained through a "false promise" or was purely consensual, the court highlighted that the prosecutrix is a "grown up and educated lady" who remained in a live-in relationship for approximately nine months

The court found that the primary grievances regarding the return of property and fear of harassment could be addressed through bail conditions rather than continued incarceration

The accused was directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court

The court specifically ordered the accused not to contact the prosecutrix in any manner

The court clarified that the trial court must take an independent view of the evidence at the final stage of the trial