The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the mere allegation of sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage does not justify automatic denial of anticipatory bail when the victim is a consenting adult. This ruling reinforces that the existence of a prolonged consensual relationship must be weighed in bail jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ranjan Ojha, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The case involves allegations under Section 376(2)(N) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to sexual intercourse by a man with a woman under the pretext of marriage and criminal intimidation.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the victim were in a consensual romantic relationship from 13.03.2024 until December 2025.
- The victim is a major female, aged approximately 28 years at the time of the alleged incident.
- The relationship was ongoing and mutually acknowledged by both parties.
- The victim lodged the FIR after the relationship ended, alleging that the applicant had engaged in sexual relations with her under false promises of marriage.
- The applicant claims he was falsely implicated following the breakdown of the relationship.
- No prior criminal record or history of violence against the victim is alleged.
Procedural History
- 13.03.2024: Start of consensual relationship between applicant and victim.
- December 2025: Relationship ended.
- Early 2026: FIR No. 42/2026 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha.
- 01.04.2026: Application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant: The applicant’s counsel argued that the victim was a consenting adult, the relationship was voluntary and long-standing, and the FIR was filed in retaliation to the breakup. The applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and is not a flight risk.
For the Respondent (State): The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of BNS, which acknowledged the relationship but alleged deception. The State contended that the gravity of the offence under Section 376(2)(N) warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, with conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits denial of anticipatory bail solely on the basis of the nature of the offence, when the victim is a consenting adult and the relationship was long-standing and voluntary.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that consent of a major adult woman negates the element of coercion or deception required for Section 376(2)(N). Citing State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and State of Rajasthan v. Ram Singh, counsel argued that where the relationship is consensual and the victim is not a minor, the offence cannot be presumed to be of the highest gravity warranting denial of bail. The applicant’s conduct did not indicate any intent to evade trial.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Section 376(2)(N) is a non-bailable offence with a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, and that the mere filing of an FIR under this provision justifies denial of anticipatory bail. The State emphasized the seriousness of sexual offences and the need to protect victims from potential intimidation, regardless of the consensual nature of the prior relationship.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNS, which explicitly acknowledged the existence of a consensual relationship from 2024 to December 2025. The Court noted that the victim, being a major adult, was not under any disability that would render her consent legally invalid.
"The applicant and victim were in contact since 2024, victim is a major girl aged about 28 years old and she was consenting party. Therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant."
The Court held that the nature of the relationship and the voluntary participation of the victim are material factors under Section 483 BNS, which requires the court to consider the likelihood of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses. No such risk was established. The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors, coercion, or abuse of power, where bail is routinely denied. The Court emphasized that the law does not presume guilt merely because an FIR is registered, and that the presumption of innocence remains intact until proven otherwise.
The Court further observed that the applicant had no history of criminal conduct, was cooperative, and had no motive to flee. The State’s reliance on the gravity of the offence alone was insufficient to override the applicant’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail to Ranjan Ojha. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and one surety of like amount, subject to the following conditions: (a) No inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses; (b) No conduct prejudicial to the trial; (c) Appearance before the trial court on all dates; (d) Submission of Aadhaar card and colored photograph with Aadhaar number verified by the court; (e) No commission of any similar offence in future. The order is effective immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent of a Major Adult Is a Material Factor in Bail Decisions
- Practitioners must now argue that consensual relationships between adults cannot be equated with non-consensual sexual offences under Section 376(2)(N).
- Courts must distinguish between cases of broken relationships and cases of actual exploitation or coercion.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate specific risk factors beyond the mere registration of the FIR.
Section 483 BNS Requires Individualized Assessment, Not Automatic Denial
- Bail applications under Section 483 BNS cannot be rejected solely on the basis of the offence’s severity.
- Courts must evaluate: (i) the nature of the relationship, (ii) the victim’s age and capacity to consent, (iii) the accused’s conduct and background, and (iv) likelihood of tampering.
- This judgment reinforces that bail is the rule, jail is the exception, even in serious sexual offence cases involving adults.
Documentary and Statement Evidence Must Be Scrutinized, Not Ignored
- Victim statements under Section 183 BNS must be analyzed for content, not just cited as grounds for denial.
- If the statement admits consensual contact, courts cannot ignore it in favor of blanket assumptions.
- Legal practitioners should request copies of Section 183 statements at the earliest stage to build bail arguments.
