The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the voluntary participation of a major woman in a consensual relationship, even when followed by a dispute over marriage, does not automatically constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This ruling significantly narrows the scope of criminal liability in cases involving romantic entanglements and false promises of marriage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shakir Ali, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 0338/2025 registered at Police Station Gaurela, for alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 138, and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The prosecutrix, a major woman, alleged that she was induced to accompany the applicant for ten days under the pretext of marriage, after which he refused to marry her. She claimed she was compelled due to threats to her integrity.
Procedural History
- November 2025: FIR registered after prosecutrix filed complaint
- December 2025: Applicant arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- January 2026: Charge-sheet filed by police
- January 2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail, arguing that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult, the relationship spanned two years, and no coercion or force was involved. He emphasized the prolonged detention and likely delay in trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 138 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita criminalizes consensual sexual relations between adults, even when one party later alleges deception regarding marriage, and whether such allegations alone justify denial of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel argued that the prosecutrix was a major woman who voluntarily stayed with the applicant for ten days, indicating mutual consent. The two-year pre-existing relationship negated any claim of inducement or fraud. Counsel cited State of Haryana v. Vikram to assert that mere breach of promise of marriage does not attract criminal liability under Section 138 BNS absent proof of dishonest intent at the outset. The filing of the charge-sheet, they submitted, did not negate the applicant’s right to bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of BNSS revealed deception, as the applicant allegedly promised marriage and then reneged. The State relied on the existence of a prior criminal record under the Excise Act and argued that the gravity of the offence - alleged sexual exploitation - warranted continued detention. It asserted that the charge-sheet reflected prima facie evidence of guilt.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a careful review of the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 of BNSS, noting her acknowledgment of a two-year consensual relationship and voluntary travel with the applicant. The Court emphasized that consent of a major woman cannot be disregarded merely because a relationship later soured. The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors, coercion, or physical confinement, stating that Section 138 BNS requires proof of fraudulent intent at the time of inducing the woman, not mere post-facto regret.
"The fact that the prosecutrix was a major and had willingly stayed with the applicant for ten days under the pretext of marriage, after a two-year relationship, indicates absence of any criminal intent at the time of the alleged inducement."
The Court further noted that the charge-sheet, while formally filed, did not establish a strong prima facie case of dishonesty. The applicant’s detention since December 2025, coupled with the anticipated length of trial, weighed heavily in favor of bail. The Court rejected the State’s reliance on prior excise-related antecedents as irrelevant to the present charges.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that consent of a major woman in a prolonged consensual relationship negates the essential ingredient of dishonest intent under Section 138 BNS, and granted regular bail subject to strict conditions ensuring trial compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent of a Major Woman Is a Defining Factor
- Practitioners must now focus on establishing the nature and duration of the relationship before alleging deception under Section 138 BNS
- Prosecutions based solely on post-breakup complaints without evidence of initial fraud are likely to fail at the bail stage
- Courts will scrutinize whether the woman was coerced, confined, or misled at the outset
Bail Is Not Automatically Denied in Relationship-Based Cases
- Filing of a charge-sheet does not preclude bail if the allegations lack coercive or fraudulent elements
- Prolonged detention without trial, especially in non-violent cases, supports bail under Article 21
- Conditions on bail must be tailored to ensure trial participation, not punitive
Judicial Scrutiny of Section 183 Statements Is Mandatory
- Statements under Section 183 BNSS must be evaluated for consistency and voluntariness
- Contradictions or omissions in prosecutrix’s account can undermine the prosecution’s case
- Courts must avoid treating every broken promise as a criminal act
