The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that long-term cohabitation and consensual sexual relations, even where initiated under a promise of marriage, do not automatically constitute rape under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if there is no evidence of deceit at the outset. The judgment underscores the necessity of proving dishonest intent at the time of sexual intercourse, not merely inferring it from subsequent events.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Damodar, is accused in Crime No. 36 of 2026 registered at Police Station Maharajpur, District Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, for offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations stem from a relationship with a woman who was already married at the time of their association.
Key Facts
- The victim was married and lived with her husband for 10 years before he left her
- She resided at her matrimonial home until 2024, during which time she became acquainted with the applicant
- After her husband left, she moved to her parental home in Jabalpur
- The applicant began contacting her regularly
- In 2024, she began residing with the applicant, allegedly on the promise that he would marry her
- The applicant performed a symbolic marriage ritual by applying vermilion to her hair partition at the Chausanth Yogini Temple
- Sexual relations continued between them over a period of time
- The victim became pregnant on 03.03.2026
- The FIR was registered only after her pregnancy, following her demand for marriage and the applicant’s alleged threat to induce abortion
- The victim never insisted on marriage during the period of cohabitation prior to pregnancy
Procedural History
- 03.03.2026: Victim becomes pregnant
- Late March 2026: FIR registered at Police Station Maharajpur, District Sagar
- 24.03.2026: Application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail
- 24.03.2026: Hearing before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, arguing that the relationship was consensual and based on long-term cohabitation, and that no criminal intent existed at the time of sexual intercourse.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies when sexual intercourse occurs during a prolonged consensual relationship initiated by a promise of marriage, and whether the subsequent filing of an FIR upon pregnancy alone suffices to establish criminal intent at the time of intercourse.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the relationship was one of long-term cohabitation, not a one-time deception. He relied on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal to emphasize that courts must prevent abuse of process in sexual offence cases. He cited Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal to show that courts must examine the totality of circumstances, including duration of cohabitation and absence of prior complaints, before inferring false promise. He contended that the victim’s failure to demand marriage during the months of cohabitation negated any claim of deceit at the time of intercourse.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel argued that the applicant induced the victim into sexual relations by falsely promising marriage, a classic case under Section 69 BNSS. He emphasized that the victim’s pregnancy and subsequent demand for marriage triggered the FIR, indicating that the promise was never genuine. He contended that the ritual of applying vermilion was a mere pretense to legitimize the relationship, and that the applicant’s threat to abort the child confirmed his dishonest intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found no evidence that the applicant made a false promise of marriage at the inception of the relationship. The victim lived with the applicant for an extended period without demanding marriage, and the FIR was lodged only after pregnancy. The Court noted that the act of applying vermilion at a temple, while symbolic, was not inherently fraudulent if both parties understood it as a social or emotional commitment.
"Looking to the factual aspects that the victim was already married and her marriage was not legally dissolved... she never insisted for marriage but the FIR was lodged when she became pregnant on 03.03.2026..."
The Court distinguished this case from those where a single act of deception led to immediate sexual intercourse. Here, the relationship evolved over time, with mutual cohabitation and no prior complaint. The Court held that the mere fact of pregnancy and subsequent demand for marriage cannot retroactively convert consensual relations into criminal conduct. The burden of proving dishonest intent at the time of intercourse lies with the prosecution, and the evidence presented did not meet that threshold.
The Court also emphasized the principle from Bhajan Lal that courts must guard against misuse of criminal process in matrimonial disputes, particularly where civil remedies remain available.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, he shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety of like amount. He must comply with all conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS. The Court explicitly declined to comment on the merits of the case, limiting its order to the grant of anticipatory bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Cohabitation Undermine Prosecution for False Promise
- Practitioners must now demonstrate that the false promise of marriage existed at the time of first intercourse, not merely inferred from later events
- Prolonged cohabitation without demand for marriage weakens the prosecution’s claim of deceit
- Rituals like applying vermilion, without formal marriage, cannot alone establish criminal intent
Pregnancy Alone Is Not Sufficient to Infer Criminal Intent
- FIRs filed after pregnancy, especially following a demand for marriage, require corroboration of prior dishonesty
- Courts will scrutinize the timeline: if sexual relations predate pregnancy by months and no complaint was made, the case for false promise is significantly weakened
- Prosecutors must now produce contemporaneous evidence of deception, not rely on post-pregnancy conduct
Judicial Caution Against Misuse of Sexual Offence Provisions
- Courts are increasingly vigilant against using Sections 69 and 351(3) BNSS to settle personal disputes
- The Bhajan Lal doctrine remains a powerful tool to quash frivolous complaints in consensual relationships
- Lawyers should routinely invoke this precedent in anticipatory bail applications involving long-term relationships
