The Rajasthan High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner after the prosecutrix, a married adult woman, filed an affidavit affirming that the FIR was lodged due to family pressure and misunderstanding, and that she no longer wished to pursue proceedings. The judgment underscores the weight courts may accord to the voluntary withdrawal of allegations by a complainant in non-heinous offences, particularly where no evidence of coercion or malice is present.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Roopa Ram, aged about 30 years, resident of Village Rukhada, PS Sheoganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan, was named as an accused in FIR No. 202/2025 registered at Shiv Ganj (Erinpura) Police Station, Sirohi. The FIR invoked Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 115(2), and 74 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S., 2023), which pertain to offences related to sexual intercourse without consent and related conduct.
Key Facts
- The prosecutrix is a major and married woman.
- On 21.11.2025, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer pursuant to an order of a coordinate Bench of this Court.
- The prosecutrix filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer, stating that the FIR was lodged due to family pressure and misunderstanding, and that she does not wish to proceed against the petitioner.
- The affidavit is recorded in the case diary and was placed before the Court.
- No allegation of physical violence, coercion, or abduction was substantiated in the FIR or during investigation.
Procedural History
- 15.04.2025: FIR No. 202/2025 registered at Shiv Ganj (Erinpura) Police Station, Sirohi.
- 21.11.2025: Petitioner appeared before Investigating Officer as directed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
- 29.04.2026: Present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and non-interference with witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be granted when the prosecutrix, a major adult woman, has unequivocally affirmed through affidavit that the FIR was filed due to family pressure and she does not wish to pursue the case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that the prosecutrix’s affidavit, recorded in the case diary, demonstrates the absence of criminal intent or wrongdoing on the petitioner’s part. He emphasized that the prosecutrix is a married adult with autonomy over her legal choices, and that continuing proceedings against the petitioner would amount to judicial enforcement of familial discord. He relied on the principle that courts must not permit criminal law to be weaponized in private disputes where the complainant has withdrawn her complaint.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the general ground that the offences alleged are serious under the new Code. However, he conceded that the prosecutrix had filed an affidavit stating that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and family pressure, and that she does not wish to proceed against the petitioner. He did not contest the authenticity or voluntariness of the affidavit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the status of the prosecutrix, and the evidentiary value of her affidavit. It noted that the prosecutrix is a major and married woman, implying legal capacity to make informed decisions regarding her personal affairs. The Court observed that the affidavit was not merely a statement of regret but a clear, recorded withdrawal of the complaint, made before the Investigating Officer.
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly that the prosecutrix is an adult and a married lady; learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the prosecutrix has filed an affidavit stating that the present FIR has been lodged out of some misunderstanding and family pressure; and that the prosecutrix does not wish to proceed against the petitioner..."
The Court declined to evaluate the merits of the allegations, recognizing that the prosecutrix’s voluntary withdrawal, coupled with the absence of any indication of coercion or public interest harm, rendered continued criminal proceedings unnecessary. The Court held that in cases where the complainant’s consent is central to the offence and she has unequivocally withdrawn her complaint, the court’s discretion under Section 482 must be exercised to prevent abuse of process.
The Court further emphasized that the conditions proposed by the petitioner - availability for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses - are standard, reasonable, and sufficient to safeguard the integrity of the investigation.
The Verdict
The anticipatory bail application was allowed. The petitioner, Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Roopa Ram, shall be released on bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or S.H.O. The petitioner must: (i) make himself available for interrogation as and when required; and (ii) refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person acquainted with the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the police or court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Withdrawal by Complainant Can Be Decisive
- Practitioners must promptly file and highlight affidavits of withdrawal by complainants in non-heinous cases under B.N.S.S., 2023.
- Courts are likely to treat such affidavits as strong indicators of absence of criminal intent, especially in cases involving personal relationships.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate public interest in continuing proceedings despite withdrawal.
Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Remedy for the Innocent Alone
- Anticipatory bail under Section 482 is not confined to cases of false implication alone.
- It may be granted where the complainant’s voluntary withdrawal negates the necessity of custodial interrogation.
- Courts may prioritize procedural fairness and avoidance of harassment over speculative allegations when the complainant is an adult with agency.
Conditions Must Be Tailored, Not Standardized
- The Court’s imposition of standard conditions (availability for interrogation, no witness tampering) reflects judicial restraint.
- Practitioners should propose conditions that are specific to the case’s risk profile, not merely copy-paste templates.
- Failure to propose reasonable conditions may result in denial, even where withdrawal is established.
