The Uttarakhand High Court has clarified that a consensual intimate relationship, even if founded on a false promise of marriage, does not automatically constitute rape under the B.N.S. 2023. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving dishonest intent at the time of the promise, aligning with established precedents on sexual offences and personal liberty.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, a 34-year-old widow with two minor children, alleges that the applicant, Ganesh Rawat, entered into a four-year intimate relationship from February 2021 to March 2025 under the false pretext of marriage. She claims he exploited her emotional vulnerability to engage in repeated physical relations and subsequently married another woman. F.I.R. No. 0016 of 2026 was registered under Section 69 and Section 89 of the B.N.S. 2023, which criminalize sexual exploitation through deceitful promises of marriage.
Procedural History
- March 2025: F.I.R. registered at Police Station Vikasnagar, Dehradun
- January 2026: Applicant filed anticipatory bail application before the Uttarakhand High Court
- No chargesheet filed at the time of hearing; investigation ongoing
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail to prevent arrest, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the F.I.R. was filed with mala fide intent to extort money.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 and Section 89 of the B.N.S. 2023 criminalize all instances of sexual relations based on a false promise of marriage, or whether dishonest intent at the time of the promise must be proven to establish criminal liability.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, arguing that physical relations arising from a mutual, consensual relationship - even if later broken - do not ipso facto amount to rape. He emphasized that the complainant was an adult woman who engaged voluntarily over four years, with no evidence of coercion or deception at the outset. The F.I.R., he contended, was a retaliatory measure following the applicant’s marriage to another woman.
For the Respondent
The State opposed bail, asserting that the prolonged nature of the relationship and the subsequent marriage to another woman demonstrated a pattern of deceit. Counsel argued that Section 69 explicitly penalizes inducement of sexual relations through false promises, and that the complainant’s vulnerability as a widow with minor children heightened the gravity of the offence. The State maintained that granting bail would impede investigation and discourage victims from coming forward.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the ratio decidendi in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, which held that not every broken promise of marriage amounts to rape. The Court noted that the complainant’s own conduct - engaging in a four-year intimate relationship without any documented demand for marriage or protest during that period - undermined the claim of deception at the inception. The Court observed that mere breach of a social promise, without evidence of premeditated fraud, cannot sustain a criminal charge under Section 69.
"The law does not criminalize broken hearts or failed relationships. It targets deliberate exploitation. The absence of any prior complaint or communication indicating deception during the four-year period weighs heavily against the allegation of dishonest intent."
The Court further distinguished this case from those involving minors, coercion, or immediate exploitation, noting that the complainant was an adult with agency. It held that Section 89, which requires proof of inducement through deceit, cannot be invoked without corroborative evidence of fraudulent intent at the time the promise was made.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that anticipatory bail must be granted where the allegations, even if serious, lack prima facie evidence of dishonest intent at the time of the promise. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions, affirming that consensual relationships cannot be criminalized retroactively.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Duration Matter in Rape Allegations
- Practitioners must now challenge F.I.R.s under Section 69 B.N.S. 2023 by demonstrating the duration and mutual nature of the relationship
- Absence of prior complaints or communication about marriage during the relationship weakens the prosecution’s case
- Courts will scrutinize whether the promise was made with intent to deceive, not merely whether it was later broken
Prosecution Must Prove Dishonest Intent, Not Just Outcome
- The burden remains on the State to establish mens rea at the time of the promise, not merely the consequence
- Oral testimony alone, without contemporaneous evidence (texts, witnesses, written assurances), is insufficient
- This judgment reinforces Pramod Suryabhan Pawar as binding precedent in cases involving adult consensual relationships
Bail Should Be the Norm, Not the Exception
- Anticipatory bail applications in such cases must be viewed through the lens of Article 21 and the presumption of innocence
- Courts should not treat every allegation of broken marriage promise as a ground for arrest
- Conditions like passport deposit and no-contact orders are sufficient safeguards without pre-trial detention
