The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that a broken promise of marriage following a consensual romantic relationship, without evidence of coercion or non-consent, does not automatically attract criminal liability under Sections 64 or 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court granted bail to a young man accused of sexual relations with a minor, emphasizing the absence of prosecutorial proof of non-consent and the likelihood of prolonged trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dinesh S/o Surta Ram, aged 21, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 43/2026 registered at Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur, under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainant, the prosecutrix, is 17 years and 8 months old at the time of the FIR. The core allegation is that the petitioner engaged in a one-year-long physical relationship with her, promised marriage, but later broke the promise and married another woman. The prosecutrix and her mother allege that the petitioner induced her into the relationship under false pretenses and subsequently abandoned her.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix was 17 years and 8 months old at the time of the alleged acts.
- The relationship lasted approximately one year, beginning around mid-2024.
- The prosecutrix initially stated in the FIR that the relationship was consensual and that she did not allege non-consent or force.
- In her statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), she reiterated the consensual nature of the relationship.
- In her subsequent statement under Section 183 of BNSS, she altered her version, claiming the petitioner had sexual relations with her against her will.
- The mother’s statement under Section 183 BNSS corroborated the relationship and broken promise but did not allege physical force or coercion.
- The petitioner was arrested on 12.03.2026 and has been in judicial custody since.
- No medical or forensic evidence of non-consent or assault was cited in the charge sheet.
Procedural History
- 12.03.2026: Petitioner arrested in connection with FIR No. 43/2026.
- 12.05.2026: Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
- 12.05.2026: Hearing conducted before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu.
The Parties' Positions
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks bail under Section 483 of BNSS, arguing that the case, if at all criminal, falls under Section 69 of BNS (which carries no minimum sentence) rather than Section 64(2)(m) (which requires proof of non-consent). He requests release on personal bond with sureties, citing the prolonged nature of trial and absence of flight risk.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS applies when a consensual sexual relationship ends in a broken promise of marriage, and whether the subsequent alteration of the prosecutrix’s statement to allege non-consent suffices to justify continued judicial custody without prima facie evidence of coercion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the initial statements of the prosecutrix and her mother confirm a consensual relationship. The later assertion of non-consent under Section 183 BNSS is a subsequent improvement inconsistent with earlier accounts and lacks corroboration. He contended that the case, if prosecutable, falls under Section 69 of the BNS - which criminalizes sexual intercourse by a man with a woman under 18 years with her consent, but carries no mandatory minimum sentence. He emphasized that Section 64(2)(m) requires proof of non-consent, which is absent. He cited the absence of any medical evidence, delay in lodging the FIR, and the motive of revenge due to broken promise as factors favoring bail.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, arguing that the prosecutrix’s final statement under Section 183 BNSS, alleging non-consent, establishes a prima facie case under Section 64(2)(m). She contended that the age of the prosecutrix (under 18) and the nature of the relationship invoke the protective intent of the BNS, and that bail should be denied due to the seriousness of the alleged offence. She did not, however, present any evidence of force, threat, or lack of consent beyond the altered statement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the prosecutrix’s evolving statements. It noted that the initial FIR and the Section 180 statement did not allege non-consent. The Court observed that the change in version under Section 183 BNSS occurred only after the petitioner had entered into another marriage, suggesting a possible motive of retaliation. The Court emphasized that Section 64(2)(m) requires proof of sexual intercourse without the woman’s consent, and that mere broken promises do not convert consensual acts into criminal offences under this provision.
"The allegation is that the petitioner had promised to marry her and thereafter backed out of his promise. However, subsequently, in her statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, she again stated that she had been in a relationship with the petitioner for one year."
The Court further held that Section 69 of the BNS is the more appropriate provision, as it addresses sexual intercourse with a minor with consent, and does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence. The Court noted that the prosecution had not demonstrated any risk of the petitioner fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses. The Court also considered the petitioner’s age, the length of custody (over two months), and the anticipated duration of trial.
The Court explicitly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case, but held that the threshold for granting bail under Section 483 BNSS was met given the absence of prima facie evidence of non-consent and the lack of urgency in detention.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. The petitioner is directed to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, to be approved by the trial court. He must appear before the trial court on every hearing date and whenever summoned until trial concludes. The Court made no comment on the merits of the case and explicitly preserved the right of the prosecution to proceed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consensual Relationships Do Not Automatically Trigger Section 64 BNS
- Practitioners must challenge the application of Section 64(2)(m) where the prosecutrix’s initial statements confirm consent and only later allege non-consent.
- Courts must scrutinize the timing and motive behind altered statements, especially when they follow a broken engagement.
Section 69 BNS as the Appropriate Provision in Consensual Minor Relationships
- Where sexual relations occur with a minor under 18 with her consent, and no coercion is proven, Section 69 is the correct charge - not Section 64.
- Section 69 carries no mandatory minimum sentence, making bail more readily available under Section 483 BNSS.
Bail Standard in Age-Related Sexual Cases Is Contextual
- The age of the prosecutrix alone does not negate bail; the presence or absence of non-consent is determinative.
- Courts must weigh the credibility of evolving testimonies and avoid automatic denial of bail based on the nature of the offence.
Procedural Delay Favors Bail
- Where trial is likely to extend beyond six months and custody has already exceeded two months, courts must consider the proportionality of continued detention.
- Absence of flight risk or tampering evidence must be decisive in bail decisions under BNSS.
