Repeated Sexual Encounters, No Initial Marriage Promise Alleged: Karnataka HC Grants Bail In BNS Section 69 Case

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in Crime No. 389/2026, registered for offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 118(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complaint alleged that, after the petitioner and the complainant became acquainted, he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, demanded money, threatened to publish intimate images or videos, and later assaulted and injured her when she did not meet his demand.

During the bail proceedings, the petitioner produced the charge sheet; the State opposed bail, relying on the alleged offences and risks of absconding, witness tampering and interference with the investigation.

The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 21 August 2026, and the investigation was complete.

Section 483 BNSS empowers the High Court to grant bail.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 118(1) BNS, and stated that the alleged offence was not punishable with death or life imprisonment and carried a maximum term of ten years.

It applied the principles that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and that pre-trial custody should not operate as punishment; the gravity of the allegation or the fact that an offence is triable by the Sessions Court is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to refuse bail.

The Court also relied on its earlier orders in Crl.P. No. 201122 of 2026 and Crl.P. No. 13027 of 2026, which had granted bail in similar cases involving Section 69 BNS.

The Court found that the charge sheet and the complainant’s statement disclosed material supporting the allegations, but noted that the investigation had produced no material showing that the petitioner had taken intimate photographs or videos of the complainant.

It also observed that the complaint did not indicate a promise of marriage before the initial sexual intercourse, and considered the parties’ repeated sexual intercourse, the petitioner’s age, and the absence of any identified criminal antecedents.

In addition, the petitioner had been in custody for more than two months, the investigation was complete, and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.

The Court concluded that the State’s concerns could be addressed through conditions of bail and that the allegations’ seriousness did not, on the material before it, justify continued detention.

Conditions required him to attend court and appear before the Investigating Officer when directed, assist any further investigation, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the proceedings, and commit no similar or other offence while the case was pending; breach could lead the complainant or police to seek cancellation of bail.

The Court clarified that its observations were not to affect the merits at trial.