The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an accused charged under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a newly introduced provision, by holding that allegations of rape under false promise of marriage cannot stand if the victim was already married at the time of the alleged incident. This judgment underscores the importance of factual accuracy in criminal accusations and sets a precedent for bail considerations in cases involving disputed marital status.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Furkan, was accused in Case Crime No. 118 of 2026 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station-Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich. The allegation was that the applicant committed rape upon the prosecutrix over a period of seven years under the false promise of marriage.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix was already married at the time of the alleged incident, which was a critical factual dispute
- The applicant was arrested on 26.04.2026 and had been in custody since then
- The applicant had no previous criminal history
- The applicant undertook to cooperate in trial proceedings and not misuse bail liberty if granted
Procedural History
- Case Crime No. 118 of 2026 registered under Section 69 BNS, 2023
- 26.04.2026: Applicant arrested and remanded to custody
- Bail Application No. 4557 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
- 29.06.2026: Present bail application heard and disposed of
Relief Sought
The applicant sought release on bail during the trial, contending that the allegations were false, concocted, and motivated by ulterior motives. The applicant further argued that the prosecutrix’s marital status at the time of the alleged incident negated the possibility of a false promise of marriage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which criminalizes rape under false promise of marriage, could be invoked when the prosecutrix was already married at the time of the alleged incident, thereby rendering the accusation of false promise unsustainable.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant was innocent and falsely implicated due to ulterior motives
- The allegation of rape under false promise of marriage was factually impossible as the prosecutrix was already married at the time of the alleged incident
- The applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 26.04.2026
- The applicant undertook to cooperate in trial proceedings and not misuse bail liberty if granted
For the State
- The State opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant was not entitled to any relief based on the merits of the case
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the allegation of rape under false promise of marriage was factually untenable given that the prosecutrix was already married at the time of the alleged incident. The Court noted the following key considerations:
- The applicant had no previous criminal history
- The applicant had been languishing in jail since 26.04.2026
- The applicant had undertaken to cooperate in trial proceedings and not misuse bail liberty
The Court emphasized the reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that the applicant’s continued incarceration was not justified under the circumstances.
"Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail."
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Furkan, on the following conditions:
- The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating or pressurizing witnesses
- The applicant shall file an undertaking to not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present
- The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on dates fixed for:
- Opening of the case
- Framing of charge
- Recording of statement under Section 313 CrPC
- In case of misuse of bail liberty, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and should not be construed as reflecting on the merits of the case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Promise of Marriage Allegations Must Be Factually Plausible
- Courts will scrutinize the factual basis of allegations under Section 69 BNS, 2023, particularly when the prosecutrix’s marital status at the time of the alleged incident contradicts the accusation of false promise of marriage
- Practitioners must lead evidence to establish the plausibility of the false promise allegation, failing which bail may be granted on the ground of prima facie unsustainability of the charge
Bail Considerations in New Statutory Provisions
- The judgment highlights that newly introduced statutory provisions, such as Section 69 BNS, 2023, will be subject to judicial scrutiny for factual accuracy before denying bail
- Courts may lean towards granting bail where the accusation appears factually improbable, even in serious offences, provided the accused has no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate in trial proceedings
Undertakings and Compliance Are Critical
- The Court placed significant emphasis on the applicant’s undertaking to cooperate in trial proceedings and not misuse bail liberty
- Practitioners should ensure strict compliance with bail conditions, as any violation may lead to cancellation of bail and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC
