Criminal Procedure – Bail – Sections 480 & 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69, 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2), 79 r/w Section 3(5) – Allegation of sexual relationship on promise of marriage – Consensual relationship – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise – Custody period – Progress of investigation – Bail granted with conditions
Held:
Where the relationship between the petitioner and the victim appears prima facie consensual, and the allegations indicate a breach of promise rather than a false promise of marriage at inception, continued incarceration is not warranted. Bail can be granted after considering the age of the parties, nature of allegations, period of custody, progress of investigation, and settled legal position that every breach of promise to marry does not constitute an offence.
(Paras 3–5, 15–17)
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
I. Nature of Proceedings
The Criminal Petition was filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No.113 of 2025 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 69, 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2), 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(Para 1)
II. Allegations in the FIR
As per the record, the petitioner (aged about 22 years) and respondent No.2 (aged about 23 years) belong to the same community and are relatives. The allegation is that the petitioner developed a love relationship with respondent No.2 during her degree studies, engaged in sexual intercourse on several occasions, and later refused to marry her.
(Paras 3–4)
It was further alleged that resistance from the petitioner’s family and threats of suicide by his mother and brother prevented the marriage. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner used deceitful words under the guise of love and failed to honour the promise of marriage.
(Paras 4)
III. Custody and Stage of Investigation
The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2025 and had undergone 37 days of judicial custody by the date of consideration. He is a permanent resident with a fixed abode. Nine witnesses had already been examined, and the material portion of the investigation stood completed.
(Para 5)
The Court recorded that the allegations are matters to be proved during trial by the prosecution.
(Para 5)
IV. Legal Position on Promise to Marry
The Court undertook an extensive survey of binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including:
-
Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra – holding that a consensual relationship turning sour does not justify criminal prosecution.
(Para 6) -
Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal – emphasising absence of evidence of rape where relationship was consensual.
(Para 7) -
Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) – drawing a clear distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, and holding that not every breach attracts criminal liability.
(Para 8) -
Prithivirajan v. State – reiterating that physical relations based on a promise to marry do not per se constitute rape unless the promise was false at inception.
(Paras 12, 15) -
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand – laying down that consent must be vitiated by a false promise given in bad faith from the beginning to attract criminal offence.
(Paras 13–14)
V. Application of Law to Facts
Applying the above principles, the Court found that:
-
The relationship appeared consensual, spread over a period of time.
-
There was no prima facie material to show that the promise to marry was false at inception.
-
The alleged misconception of fact had spread over a long duration.
-
Continued detention was not necessary, especially when investigation had substantially progressed.
(Paras 15–17)
VI. Grant of Bail
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the settled legal position, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
(Paras 17–18)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
A consensual sexual relationship based on a promise to marry does not, by itself, constitute an offence unless the promise is shown to be false at inception and made in bad faith.
-
There is a clear legal distinction between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of promise; only the former may attract criminal liability.
-
At the stage of bail, where the relationship appears consensual, the accused has undergone custody, investigation has substantially progressed, and the allegations require trial, continued incarceration is not warranted.
-
Bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS, 2023 can be granted with stringent conditions to balance personal liberty with the interests of justice.
