The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a consensual physical relationship ending in a broken promise of marriage does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling provides critical guidance on the boundaries between criminal exploitation and civil breach of promise in cases involving intimate relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sunil Kumar Dhiwar, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 150/2026 registered at Police Station Thana Civil Line Rampur, Korba, for an alleged offence under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges that the applicant established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, leading to sexual exploitation.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the prosecutrix came into contact approximately eight months before the incident, around November 2025.
- They exchanged mobile numbers and began regular communication, meeting frequently at various locations.
- Physical relations were established between them during this period, beginning on or around 04.07.2025.
- The prosecutrix invited the applicant to her home on multiple occasions.
- On 26.02.2026, the prosecutrix discovered through a marriage card that the applicant was planning to marry another woman.
- She alleged that the applicant had no intention of marrying her and had used the promise of marriage to obtain sexual favours.
- No incriminating articles or evidence were recovered from the applicant.
- The applicant is a farmer and daily wage labourer, a permanent resident of Dadarkhurd, Korba, with no prior criminal record.
- The FIR was lodged on 26.02.2026, nearly seven months after the alleged commencement of the relationship.
Procedural History
- 04.07.2025: Alleged commencement of physical relationship.
- 26.02.2026: Prosecutrix lodges complaint; FIR No. 150/2026 registered.
- 01.04.2026: Applicant files MCRCA No. 472 of 2026 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNS.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- The applicant denies any sexual assault or exploitation.
- He contends the relationship was consensual and based on mutual affection.
- The refusal to marry stemmed from family opposition and caste differences, not deceit.
- The prosecutrix allegedly threatened to file a false case after being rejected.
- No evidence, forensic or otherwise, has been recovered to substantiate the allegations.
- He is a permanent resident with no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
- He is willing to comply with any bail conditions imposed by the Court.
For the Respondent/State
- The State opposes bail, arguing that the applicant obtained physical relations under false pretences of marriage.
- It contends that such conduct falls squarely within the ambit of Section 69 of the BNS, which criminalizes sexual exploitation by deception.
- The State asserts that the delay in lodging the FIR does not negate the seriousness of the allegation.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes a consensual physical relationship that ends in a broken promise of marriage, or whether such conduct requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of initiating the relationship.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that consensual relationships, even if terminated due to personal or familial reasons, do not automatically become criminal. He cited the absence of any recovered evidence, the prolonged gap between the relationship’s commencement and the FIR, and the prosecutrix’s opportunity to report earlier as indicators of a civil dispute masquerading as a criminal offence. He emphasized that Section 69 BNS requires proof of fraudulent intent at the inception of the relationship, not merely a subsequent change of heart.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that the applicant’s conduct met the threshold of Section 69 BNS, as he allegedly induced the prosecutrix into physical relations by falsely representing his intention to marry her. It contended that the timing of the FIR, though delayed, was triggered by the discovery of the applicant’s marriage plans, which exposed his deceit. The State maintained that the nature of the offence - sexual exploitation through deception - warrants custodial interrogation to preserve evidence and deter similar conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relationship as described in the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of the BNS and the absence of any corroborative evidence. It noted that the parties had known each other for eight months, met frequently, and engaged in mutual social interaction, including visits to the prosecutrix’s home. The Court observed that the prosecutrix, being a major, was capable of making informed decisions regarding her personal relationships.
"It appears that the victim, being a major, was acquainted with the applicant and that both were in a consensual relationship during which physical relations were established. Thereafter, as the relationship could not materialize into marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the victim on the allegation that the applicant refused to marry her."
The Court held that while a breach of promise may cause emotional harm, it does not, without more, constitute criminal deception under Section 69 BNS. The absence of any recovered evidence, the prolonged duration of the relationship, and the lack of coercion or force further undermined the prosecution’s claim of exploitation. The Court distinguished this case from those involving manipulation, coercion, or exploitation of vulnerability, noting that the facts here pointed to a failed personal relationship rather than a criminal act.
The Court also emphasized that anticipatory bail is a procedural safeguard to prevent arbitrary arrest, particularly where the allegations, even if true, do not prima facie establish a cognizable offence under the statute.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Sunil Kumar Dhiwar on the following conditions: execution of a personal bond and one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer; no contact or inducement towards witnesses; no interference with the trial; appearance before the trial court on all dates; submission of Aadhaar card and coloured photograph with Aadhaar number for verification; and undertaking not to commit any similar offence in future. The applicant shall be released upon compliance with these conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consensual Relationships Are Not Presumptively Criminal
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 69 BNS requires proof of fraudulent intent at the outset of the relationship, not merely a subsequent refusal to marry.
- Mere emotional betrayal or broken promises, without evidence of premeditated deceit, cannot sustain a charge under this provision.
- Courts should scrutinize the timeline of the relationship, frequency of contact, and presence of corroborative evidence before allowing arrests.
Delay in Filing FIR Undermines Credibility
- A delay of seven months between the alleged commencement of relations and the FIR raises serious questions about the spontaneity and truthfulness of the complaint.
- In future cases, defence counsel should highlight such delays as indicators of ulterior motives or civil disputes.
- Prosecution must now provide a plausible explanation for the delay to establish the credibility of the allegation.
No Evidence = No Basis for Custody
- The absence of recovered incriminating material, digital evidence, or witness corroboration must be raised as a decisive factor in bail applications.
- Courts are now more likely to grant anticipatory bail where the case rests solely on the complainant’s uncorroborated statement.
- Arrest should not be automatic even in cases involving sexual allegations if the factual matrix suggests consensual conduct.
