The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that consensual sexual relationships between adults, even when accompanied by unfulfilled promises of marriage, do not per se constitute an offense under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal liability cannot be inferred merely from the breakdown of a personal relationship.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Purushottam Sahu, is accused in FIR No. 106/2026 registered at Police Station Supela, Durg, for allegedly inducing a woman into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage, in violation of Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecutrix, a major, alleged that the applicant engaged in physical relations over three years, then refused to marry her, prompting the complaint.
Procedural History
- 2026: FIR registered under Section 69 BNS following complaint by the prosecutrix
- 2026: Applicant filed anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNS before the Chhattisgarh High Court
- 2026: Court heard arguments and reviewed the case diary and victim’s statement under Section 183 BNS
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail, asserting that the relationship was consensual, initiated and maintained by the victim, who booked hotel rooms and bore expenses. He denies any promise of marriage and claims no coercion or deception.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 criminalizes consensual sexual relationships between adults when one party later alleges a broken promise of marriage, or whether such conduct requires proof of deceit, coercion, or lack of consent at the time of the relationship.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the relationship was mutually initiated and sustained over two years, with the victim voluntarily booking rooms and covering expenses. He emphasized that the victim, being a major, was fully aware of the nature of the relationship and that no force, fraud, or inducement was used. He relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest must not be automatic and that consent is a critical factor in determining criminality under Section 69 BNS.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the applicant obtained sexual favors under the pretext of marriage, which constitutes a fraudulent inducement under Section 69 BNS. It argued that the subsequent refusal to marry transforms the relationship into a criminal act, irrespective of initial consent, citing the punitive intent behind the provision to protect women from exploitation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relationship through the lens of consent and voluntariness, distinguishing between exploitation and mutual intimacy. It noted that the victim’s conduct - initiating meetings, booking rooms, and bearing expenses - demonstrated active participation over a prolonged period. The Court observed that the FIR was filed only after the relationship ended, suggesting a retaliatory motive rather than genuine victimization.
"The victim, being a major, and the present applicant were friends and had known each other for the last four years and were in a consensual relationship, during which a physical relationship was established. Thereafter, when the relationship could not culminate in marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the victim on the ground that the applicant refused to marry her."
The Court held that Section 69 BNS requires proof of deceit or coercion at the time of the act, not merely a subsequent breach of a personal promise. Absent evidence of fraud or force, the mere existence of a broken promise does not convert consensual conduct into a criminal offense. The Court further emphasized that anticipatory bail must be granted where the allegations, even if true, do not prima facie establish a cognizable offense under the statute.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that consensual adult relationships, even if unaccompanied by marriage, do not attract criminal liability under Section 69 BNS absent proof of deceit or coercion. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to specified conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Overrides Broken Promises
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 69 BNS requires active deception or coercion at the time of sexual contact, not retrospective regret
- Mere failure to marry after a consensual relationship cannot be the sole basis for invoking criminal law
- Defense strategies should focus on establishing mutual initiation and sustained participation by the complainant
Anticipatory Bail Is Presumptively Available in Consensual Cases
- Courts are likely to grant anticipatory bail where the complainant’s conduct indicates voluntary participation
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate fraud or force, not merely to rely on the existence of a broken promise
- Applicants must proactively demonstrate absence of flight risk and willingness to comply with court conditions
Documentary Evidence of Mutual Conduct Is Critical
- Hotel records, call logs, payment receipts, and messages showing reciprocal initiative are now key evidence
- Oral testimony alone, especially if delayed, is insufficient to establish criminal intent
- Defense counsel should prioritize collecting and submitting digital and documentary evidence to substantiate consent
