The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has granted ad-interim anticipatory bail to an accused in a case involving consensual sexual relations and pregnancy, holding that disclosure of the relationship to both families and subsequent breakdown do not, by themselves, establish the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 69 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This order underscores the need for judicial scrutiny of allegations in cases involving adult consensual relationships before invoking criminal liability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Aditya s/o Digeshwar Dhait, is the sole accused in Crime No. 0089/2026 registered at Armori Police Station, District Gadchiroli, under Sections 69 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint was lodged by a 21-year-old female informant, who alleges that the applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions, resulting in two pregnancies, both of which ended in abortion. She claims the applicant abandoned her after her parents agreed to the marriage proposal, following her disclosure of the relationship on 10.02.2026.
Key Facts
- The informant, aged 21, disclosed her relationship with the applicant to her mother on 10.02.2026, who subsequently agreed to the marriage proposal.
- The applicant also disclosed the relationship to his own parents, but they objected to the union.
- The applicant ended the relationship and blocked the informant’s phone number after his parents’ objection.
- The informant alleges that the applicant induced her into sexual relations under false promises of marriage.
- No allegation of force, fraud, or coercion is made in the First Information Report.
- The applicant has not been arrested as of the date of the order.
Procedural History
- 27.03.2026: First Information Report (FIR No. 0089/2026) registered at Armori Police Station under Sections 69 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- 17.04.2026: Applicant filed Criminal Application No. 297 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) seeking anticipatory bail.
- 17.04.2026: Court heard arguments and passed interim order granting ad-interim anticipatory bail.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks protection from arrest in connection with Crime No. 0089/2026 and prays for grant of anticipatory bail with conditions, including a personal bond and cooperation with investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Sections 69 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are prima facie attracted when an adult woman, aged 21, engages in consensual sexual relations with a man, discloses the relationship to her family who consent, and later alleges abandonment after the man’s family objects - without any allegation of force, fraud, or deception.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The learned counsel contended that the relationship was consensual and disclosed to both families, negating any element of deceit or exploitation. He argued that Section 69, which criminalizes sexual intercourse by a man with a woman under false pretences of marriage, requires proof of fraudulent intent at the time of intercourse - which was absent here, as the applicant had no intention to deceive at the outset. He relied on the principle that consent, once given by an adult, cannot be retrospectively invalidated by subsequent regret or family opposition. He further submitted that Section 318, relating to causing miscarriage without consent, could not apply as there was no allegation that the applicant induced or forced the abortions.
For the Respondent/State
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the allegations, if true, constituted serious offences under the new penal code. He emphasized the vulnerability of the female informant and the potential for exploitation in relationships involving pregnancy and abortion. He requested time to file a detailed reply, without opposing the grant of interim relief.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found that the applicant had disclosed the relationship to his parents, indicating no concealment or fraudulent intent. The informant’s own mother had consented to the marriage, further undermining any claim of deception. The Court noted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while replacing the IPC, retains the foundational requirement of mens rea for offences involving sexual conduct.
"The fact that the applicant disclosed the relationship to his parents, and that the informant’s family had agreed to the marriage, negates any prima facie case of dishonest intent or false promise at the time of sexual intercourse."
The Court observed that Section 69 requires proof that the accused induced the woman into intercourse by a false promise of marriage made at the time of the act. Here, the relationship began consensually and continued for a period, with both parties aware of each other’s identities and familial contexts. The subsequent breakdown due to parental objection does not retroactively transform consensual acts into criminal ones.
Regarding Section 318, the Court noted that the FIR contained no allegation that the applicant was involved in or coerced the abortions. The abortions, if they occurred, were not attributed to the applicant’s conduct. The Court held that without evidence of causation or complicity, this charge could not be sustained at the threshold stage.
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is a safeguard against arbitrary arrest, particularly in cases where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie establish the essential ingredients of the offence.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted ad-interim anticipatory bail, directing that if arrested in connection with Crime No. 0089/2026, he be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety of like amount. He is directed to report to the Armori Police Station on 22.04.2026 between 12.00 noon and 2.00 pm, cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and not leave India without prior court permission. Notice to the State was issued, returnable on 04.05.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Disclosure Undermine Fraud Allegations
- Practitioners must now argue that disclosure of a relationship to both families, absence of concealment, and absence of coercion negate the mens rea required under Section 69 BNS.
- Mere subsequent regret or family opposition cannot be used to convert consensual acts into criminal offences.
Section 318 BNS Requires Direct Causation
- In cases involving pregnancy and abortion, prosecutors must establish a direct link between the accused’s conduct and the termination - mere association is insufficient.
- Absent evidence of coercion, inducement, or participation in the abortion, Section 318 cannot be invoked.
Judicial Caution in Early-Stage Arrests
- Courts are increasingly scrutinizing the prima facie sufficiency of allegations before permitting arrest in cases involving adult consensual relationships.
- Anticipatory bail is now more accessible where the facts suggest mutual consent and no fraudulent intent at the time of intercourse.
