Surrounding circumstances cast sufficient doubt on false-marriage-promise allegations to justify anticipatory bail.

The petitioner, a practising advocate, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 394/2026, registered by Bagalgunte Police Station under Sections 69, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 352 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The complainant alleged that, after being appointed as her advocate in matrimonial proceedings, the petitioner promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her; she further alleged that he deleted their Signal communications, threatened and assaulted her, and attempted to strangle her on 2 September 2026. She lodged the complaint the following day.

The petitioner denied the allegations as false and attributed the complaint to a dispute over unpaid legal fees, relying on a suit he had filed to recover those fees. The Sessions Court had rejected his anticipatory-bail application.

The complainant opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was likely to tamper with witnesses.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations, the parties’ competing accounts of their dispute, and the circumstances on record.

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 69, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 352 and 238 of the BNS.

The Court considered the nature of the allegations, the material available, the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal antecedents and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences in deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court noted that the complainant said she had paid the petitioner more than Rs. 3,00,000 towards legal fees, while the petitioner claimed that fees remained outstanding and had issued a legal notice before filing a recovery suit shortly after the alleged incident.

It considered the fee dispute and the parties’ litigation history relevant to assessing the allegations, and stated that the promise-to-marry allegations were difficult to believe in light of the material on record.

The Court also noted that the complainant’s marriage had not yet been dissolved when the alleged sexual relationship began, that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents, and that the maximum punishment was ten years’ imprisonment.

On those circumstances, it granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

He was required to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days, execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attend the Trial Court unless exempted, refrain from tampering with prosecution witnesses, cooperate with the investigation, and not commit similar offences in future.