Consent as Defense to BNS Section 64 + IT Act 66E | Bail Granted When Physical Contact Lacks Coercion and No Criminal Antecedents: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to an accused charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The judgment underscores the importance of the complainant's majority status, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the imposition of stringent bail conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of the victim.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Raghavendra Maruti Savalekar, aged 40, was accused in Crime No. 121/2026 registered at Mudalagi Police Station, Belagavi District. The complainant alleged that the petitioner made false promises of securing a government job, engaged in a physical relationship under this pretext, and subsequently threatened to circulate her photographs on social media.

Key Facts

• Date of Alleged Incident: Not explicitly mentioned, but the complainant was a major at the time
• Date of FIR: Crime No. 121/2026 registered in 2026
• Date of Arrest: 11.05.2026
• Offences Alleged:
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 64 (rape), 66, 318(4), 77, 308(4), and 351(2)
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: Section 66E (violation of privacy)
• Travel Evidence: The petitioner produced flight tickets showing travel with the complainant from Belagavi to New Delhi, New Delhi to Srinagar, and Srinagar to New Delhi
• Complainant’s Status: Major at the time of the alleged incident
• Petitioner’s Status: No criminal antecedents

Procedural History

• 11.05.2026: Petitioner arrested and taken into custody
• 2026: Crime No. 121/2026 registered before Mudalagi Police Station
• 2026: Case pending before the JMFC, Mudalagi
• 2026: Criminal Petition No. 101220 of 2026 filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (equivalent to Section 439 of the CrPC) seeking regular bail
• 01.07.2026: Present order passed by the Karnataka High Court

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner

• Argued that the allegation of rape was untenable as the complainant had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner
• Submitted that all offences except rape were punishable with imprisonment for a maximum of seven years
• Produced flight tickets to demonstrate voluntary travel with the complainant
• Highlighted the petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents and willingness to cooperate with the investigation
• Requested bail on the grounds of the complainant’s majority status and the absence of prima facie evidence of coercion

For the Respondent/State

• Contended that the petitioner cheated the complainant by falsely promising a government job
• Alleged that the petitioner engaged in a physical relationship under false pretenses and later threatened to circulate the complainant’s photographs on social media
• Opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner could tamper with evidence or intimidate the complainant

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS (equivalent to Section 439 of CrPC), with assurances of cooperation and compliance with bail conditions.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 483 of BNSS, considering:

1. The complainant’s majority status at the time of the alleged incident
2. The absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioner
3. The nature of the offences, particularly whether Section 64 of BNS (rape) was prima facie applicable
4. The potential for tampering with evidence or intimidating the complainant

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Consent and Voluntary Association: The complainant was a major and voluntarily traveled with the petitioner, as evidenced by flight tickets
• Lesser Punishment: All offences except rape were punishable with imprisonment for a maximum of seven years
• No Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner had no prior criminal record
• Cooperation: The petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by bail conditions

For the Respondent/State

• Fraud and Coercion: The petitioner allegedly made false promises of a government job to induce the complainant into a physical relationship
• Threat to Evidence: The petitioner could tamper with evidence or intimidate the complainant if released on bail
• Gravity of Offences: The offences, particularly under Section 66E of the IT Act, involved serious violations of privacy

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the facts and legal provisions:

1. Prima Facie Applicability of Section 64 BNS: The Court noted that the complainant was a major at the time of the alleged incident, raising doubts about the applicability of Section 64 of BNS (rape). The matter required further investigation.

2. Nature of Other Offences: The Court observed that the other offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years, which weighed in favor of granting bail.

3. Absence of Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner’s lack of criminal antecedents was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.

4. Risk of Tampering: The Court acknowledged the respondents’ apprehension that the petitioner might threaten or induce the complainant or circulate her photographs. However, it held that such risks could be mitigated by imposing stringent bail conditions.

5. Duration of Custody: The petitioner had been in custody since 11.05.2026, and prolonged detention without a charge sheet could prejudice his rights.

The Court relied on the principles of bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of the offence when the accused has no criminal antecedents and the investigation is ongoing.

"The apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner may threaten or induce the complainant, or circulate her photographs, can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions."

The Verdict

The Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

1. Personal Bond: The petitioner was to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum
2. Cooperation: The petitioner was to cooperate with the investigation or inquiry
3. Non-Interference: The petitioner was prohibited from threatening, inducing, or promising anyone acquainted with the case, or tampering with evidence or witnesses
4. Address and Contact: The petitioner was to furnish his current address and active mobile number to the jurisdictional police and intimate any changes within 48 hours
5. Travel Restrictions: The petitioner was not to leave the jurisdiction of the police station without prior information and intimation
6. Non-Circulation of Material: The petitioner was prohibited from circulating any photographs or videos of the complainant
7. Campus Restrictions: The petitioner was not to visit the campus where the complainant was pursuing her studies
8. Non-Contact: The petitioner was not to make any phone calls or contact the complainant in any manner
9. Good Conduct: The petitioner was not to commit any offences while on bail

What This Means For Similar Cases

Consent and Majority Status Are Critical Factors

• Voluntary Association: Courts may consider evidence of voluntary association, such as travel tickets, to assess the complainant’s consent. Practitioners should emphasize such evidence to counter allegations of coercion
• Majority Status: The complainant’s majority status can significantly impact the applicability of offences like rape under Section 64 of BNS, especially when consent is a contested issue

Stringent Bail Conditions Can Mitigate Risks

• Tailored Conditions: Courts are increasingly imposing specific conditions to address concerns like tampering with evidence or intimidation. Practitioners should propose or argue for conditions that directly address the prosecution’s apprehensions
• Compliance: Accused persons must strictly comply with bail conditions, as violations can lead to cancellation of bail and re-arrest

Investigation Stage Favors Bail

• Charge Sheet Not Filed: When the charge sheet is not yet filed, courts are more inclined to grant bail, particularly if the accused has no criminal antecedents and the investigation is ongoing
• Prolonged Custody: Courts may consider the duration of custody and the potential prejudice to the accused if bail is denied during the investigation stage