The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that consensual sexual relationships between adult individuals, even when later dissolved, do not automatically constitute criminal offences under BNS Section 69. This ruling reinforces the principle that consent remains a decisive factor in evaluating allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly where no coercion or deception is substantiated.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Tirath Prasad Rathaur, is accused under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023, for allegedly inducing a 21-year-old woman into a sexual relationship under false promises of marriage. The prosecution alleges that the relationship, which lasted from August 2024 to January 2026, was built on deceit, culminating in the filing of FIR No. 59/2026 after the applicant refused to marry her.
Procedural History
- 5 February 2026: Prosecutrix filed written complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur
- February 2026: FIR registered under Section 69 of BNS
- 23 February 2026: Applicant filed anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual, that he had no criminal intent, and that the FIR was filed with ulterior motives following the breakdown of a voluntary romantic relationship.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of BNS applies to consensual sexual relationships between adult individuals where the sole allegation is breach of a promise to marry, without evidence of fraud, coercion, or deception.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the prosecutrix, being a major woman aged 21, entered into the relationship voluntarily and engaged in sexual relations with full knowledge and consent. Reliance was placed on Joseph Shine v. Union of India to argue that consensual adult relationships are protected under Article 21. It was submitted that mere broken promises of marriage, without proof of fraudulent intent at the time of initiation, cannot sustain a criminal charge under Section 69 of BNS.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant’s repeated assurances of marriage constituted a deceptive course of conduct, thereby falling within the ambit of Section 69 of BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by false promise of marriage. The State argued that the gravity of the offence and potential for witness tampering warranted denial of anticipatory bail.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relationship and found no material evidence of fraud, coercion, or inducement beyond the broken promise of marriage. It emphasized that Section 69 of BNS requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of inducing sexual relations, not merely subsequent regret or breach of promise. The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors, vulnerable persons, or exploitation.
"The prosecutrix is a major girl who came into contact with the applicant in the year 2023 and thereafter both developed a love relationship and established physical relations on multiple occasions out of their own free will and consent."
The Court held that criminal law must not be invoked to resolve private, consensual emotional disputes. It noted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, was willing to cooperate with investigation, and posed no flight risk. The Court further observed that prolonged pre-trial detention in such cases would violate the principle of proportionality under Article 21.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that Section 69 of BNS does not criminalize consensual relationships merely because a promise of marriage was later broken. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to specific conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and fair trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Overrides Broken Promises
- Practitioners must now establish fraudulent intent at the time of inducement, not merely prove a broken promise, to invoke Section 69 of BNS
- Mere emotional betrayal or post-relationship regret cannot substitute for criminal intent
- Courts will scrutinize whether the accused misrepresented material facts (e.g., marital status, financial capacity) to obtain consent
Anticipatory Bail Is Presumptively Available in Consensual Adult Cases
- In cases involving adult complainants with no evidence of coercion, anticipatory bail should be the norm, not the exception
- Courts must weigh the proportionality of arrest against the nature of the allegation
- Conditions such as regular court appearances and no contact with witnesses are sufficient safeguards
Burden of Proof Remains on the Prosecution
- The prosecution bears the burden to prove that the accused never intended to marry at the time of initiating the relationship
- Oral assurances alone, without corroborative evidence of deceit, are insufficient for prosecution
- Courts must avoid conflating moral wrongdoing with criminal liability
