Anticipatory Bail | Consensual Relationship Defence Under Section 69 BNS : Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has established a critical precedent for anticipatory bail applications under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that consensual relationships between adults cannot automatically attract criminal liability when physical relations occur without force or fraudulent misrepresentation. This judgment clarifies the evidentiary burden for prosecutors in cases involving pre-marital intimacy, while reinforcing the principle of free consent in sexual offence prosecutions.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, a 24-year-old resident of Mahasamund district, faced imminent arrest in Crime No. 59/2026 registered at Police Station Basna. The complaint, lodged by a 22-year-old woman on 02.02.2026, alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her between February 2025 and November 2025 under the false pretext of marriage. The FIR stated that after developing intimacy at the complainant's aunt's house, the applicant repeatedly engaged in sexual relations while promising marriage, only to later refuse matrimony and cease communication.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 02.02.2026: Complaint filed at Police Station Sarangarh
• 02.02.2026: FIR registered under Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse by deceitful means)
• February 2026: Case transferred to Police Station Basna
• 28.02.2026: Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The Parties' Positions

The applicant contended that:

• The relationship was entirely consensual between two adults of matching age
• The complainant voluntarily accompanied him to multiple locations, including hotels
• No complaint was made during the 11-month relationship period
• The FIR was lodged only after his marriage was fixed with another woman
• Medical evidence (MLC) did not support allegations of force

The State opposed bail, arguing that the physical relations were established under the false promise of marriage, satisfying the ingredients of Section 69 BNS.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether Section 69 BNS applies to consensual relationships between adults where:

1. Physical relations occurred without force or coercion
2. The complainant was a major capable of giving free consent
3. No immediate complaint was lodged during the relationship period
4. The alleged deceit (promise of marriage) emerged only after the relationship soured

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

The defence counsel advanced several key arguments:

• Consent as Complete Defence: Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the applicant argued that free consent negates the offence under Section 69 BNS when no force or fraud is established
• Delay in Complaint: The 11-month delay in lodging the FIR was highlighted as indicative of mala fide intentions, particularly given the complainant's failure to inform family during the relationship
• Medical Evidence: The MLC report was cited to demonstrate absence of physical injuries, undermining allegations of force
• Precedent Application: The counsel distinguished Uday v. State of Karnataka, arguing that the present case lacked the fraudulent misrepresentation element required for Section 69 BNS

For the Respondent

The State's counsel contended:

• Promise of Marriage as Deceit: The false promise of marriage was argued to constitute deceitful means under Section 69 BNS, vitiating consent
• Continuing Offence: The prolonged nature of the relationship (February 2025-November 2025) was presented as evidence of sustained deception
• Victim's Vulnerability: The complainant's age and emotional dependence were emphasized to argue that consent was not truly free
• Public Interest: The State argued that granting bail would encourage similar false promises, undermining the legislative intent behind Section 69 BNS

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a meticulous examination of Section 69 BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse "by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling the same." The analysis focused on three critical aspects:

1. The Nature of Consent

The judgment emphasized that Section 69 BNS targets relationships where consent is obtained through active deception, not merely broken promises:

"The mere fact that a promise of marriage was made and subsequently not fulfilled does not, by itself, constitute deceitful means under Section 69 BNS. There must be evidence to show that the accused had no intention of marrying the prosecutrix at the time of making the promise."

The Court distinguished between:

• Fraudulent misrepresentation (where marriage was never intended)
• Subsequent change of mind (where genuine intent existed but circumstances changed)

1. Evidentiary Burden

The analysis clarified the prosecution's burden of proof in Section 69 BNS cases:

• Prima facie evidence of deceitful intent at the time of promise
• Corroboration of allegations through medical or documentary evidence
• Plausible explanation for delay in complaint

The Court noted that in this case:

• The complainant's 11-month silence during the relationship undermined her credibility
• The absence of force in medical reports weakened the prosecution's case
• The timing of the FIR (after applicant's marriage was fixed) suggested possible mala fide motives

1. Bail Jurisprudence

The judgment reinforced the triple test for anticipatory bail established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab:

• Reasonable apprehension of arrest
• Non-interference with investigation
• Cooperation with the legal process

The Court held that these conditions were satisfied because:

• The applicant had no criminal antecedents
• There was no risk of evidence tampering
• The consensual nature of the relationship reduced flight risk

The Verdict

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application with stringent conditions. The key holdings were:

1. Consensual relationships between adults do not attract Section 69 BNS liability absent proof of deceitful intent at the time of promise
2. Delay in complaint and absence of medical evidence create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case
3. Anticipatory bail is appropriate when the accused demonstrates willingness to cooperate with investigation and no threat to witnesses

The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond and surety, with conditions including:

• Non-interference with witnesses
• Regular appearance before the trial court
• Submission of Aadhaar details for verification

What This Means For Similar Cases

Consent Must Be Evaluated Contextually

This judgment establishes critical parameters for assessing consent in Section 69 BNS cases:

• Free consent between adults negates criminal liability when no force or fraud is proven
• Broken promises alone are insufficient to establish deceitful means
• Pre-marital intimacy cannot be criminalized without evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation

Practitioners should argue:

• Timeline analysis: Was the promise made in good faith or with fraudulent intent?
• Behavioral evidence: Did the complainant act consistently with allegations during the relationship?
• Alternative motives: Are there factors suggesting mala fide complaint (e.g., revenge, family pressure)?

Prosecution Faces Higher Evidentiary Burden

The judgment raises the threshold for Section 69 BNS prosecutions:

• Medical evidence becomes crucial to prove force or lack of consent
• Documentary proof (messages, witness statements) may be required to establish deceitful intent
• Delay in complaint must be plausibly explained

Prosecutors must now:

• Corroborate allegations with independent evidence beyond the complainant's statement
• Establish fraudulent intent at the time of promise, not merely subsequent refusal
• Address inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative

Bail Conditions Set New Precedent

The Court's bail conditions introduce novel requirements:

• Aadhaar verification for both applicant and surety
• Postcard-sized photograph with printed Aadhaar number
• Explicit prohibition on similar future offences

Defence counsel should:

• Prepare clients for these additional documentation requirements
• Argue for proportionality in conditions based on case facts
• Monitor compliance to avoid bail cancellation