The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that anticipatory bail must be granted where the alleged offence arises from a prolonged consensual relationship, and there is no prima facie evidence of deceit or coercive intent. The judgment underscores that the mere assertion of broken marriage promises, without corroboration of fraudulent intent, does not justify pre-arrest detention under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ravi Savlani, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 115/2026 registered at Police Station Palasia, Indore, for an alleged offence under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.), which criminalizes sexual relations obtained by false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix alleges that the applicant entered into a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage, despite being married to another woman.
Key Facts
- The applicant and the prosecutrix were known to each other for several years prior to the filing of the FIR.
- Both parties were previously married; the applicant disclosed his marital status to the prosecutrix at the outset.
- The initial date of the alleged sexual relationship is stated in the FIR as 10.01.2022.
- The alleged refusal to marry occurred on 10.04.2026, nearly four years after the relationship began.
- The FIR was registered on 16.04.2026, following a dispute between the parties.
- WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the prosecutrix were submitted as evidence, showing mutual affection and no indication of coercion.
- WhatsApp chats between the prosecutrix and the applicant’s wife reveal that the prosecutrix, upon being informed of the marriage, dismissed concerns that the applicant had deceived her.
- Photographs show the applicant and the prosecutrix traveling together to Singapore.
- No prior complaint or legal notice was issued before the FIR.
Procedural History
- 10.01.2022: Alleged commencement of sexual relationship.
- 10.04.2026: Alleged refusal by applicant to marry the prosecutrix.
- 16.04.2026: FIR No. 115/2026 registered at Police Station Palasia, Indore.
- 12.05.2026: Application under Section 482 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 438 of CrPC, 1973 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The relationship was consensual and initiated with full knowledge of his marital status.
- The prosecutrix herself acknowledged in WhatsApp chats that she was aware of his marriage and did not perceive any deception.
- The delay of over four years between the start of the relationship and the FIR indicates a post-facto dispute, not criminal intent.
- The photographs and digital communications establish a pattern of mutual intimacy, not exploitation.
- Custodial interrogation is unnecessary and would violate the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
For the Respondent/State and Objector
The State and the objector opposed the bail plea on the grounds that:
- The applicant allegedly induced the prosecutrix into a sexual relationship by falsely promising marriage.
- The language in some WhatsApp messages was allegedly threatening and coercive.
- The offence under Section 69 B.N.S. is serious and non-bailable, warranting custodial investigation.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation and compliance with statutory obligations under Section 438 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 attracts criminal liability where a consensual sexual relationship exists over an extended period, the accused disclosed his marital status, and the complaint is filed only after a personal dispute, with no evidence of initial deceit.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sushil Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi to argue that anticipatory bail must be granted where the allegations do not prima facie establish dishonest intent at the inception of the relationship. The WhatsApp chats and travel records were presented as objective evidence negating the claim of deception. The counsel emphasized that the prosecutrix’s own conduct - continuing the relationship for four years and rejecting the wife’s concerns - undermines the allegation of fraud.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that Section 69 B.N.S. is designed to protect women from sexual exploitation through false promises of marriage, and that the duration of the relationship is irrelevant if the promise was never intended to be fulfilled. The objector highlighted allegedly threatening messages as evidence of intimidation, suggesting that the applicant sought to silence the complainant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed review of the WhatsApp chats, photographs, and the timeline of events. It noted that the prosecutrix was aware of the applicant’s marital status and continued the relationship for over four years. The Court observed:
"The complainant, upon being informed of the applicant’s marriage, did not express any sense of betrayal or deception, but instead dismissed the wife’s apprehensions. This is inconsistent with the claim of being duped."
The Court further held that the delay of nearly four years between the commencement of the relationship and the filing of the FIR, coupled with the absence of any prior complaint or demand for marriage, strongly suggests that the FIR arose from a personal dispute, not criminal intent. The Court distinguished this case from those involving predatory conduct or short-term deception, emphasizing that Section 69 B.N.S. requires proof of fraudulent intent at the time of inducing the relationship, not merely a subsequent breach of promise.
The Court also rejected the argument that threatening messages alone justified custodial interrogation, noting that such messages, if proven, could be addressed through conditions of bail rather than pre-arrest detention.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail, directing that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and furnishing one solvent surety of the same amount. The applicant shall make himself available for police interrogation as required and shall comply with all conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC, 1973. The Court further directed that any violation of bail conditions may be addressed by the trial court, which shall decide on cancellation in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Duration Matter in Section 69 BNS Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that prolonged consensual relationships, where the accused disclosed marital status, cannot be treated as per se fraudulent under Section 69 B.N.S.
- WhatsApp chats and digital evidence showing mutual awareness and continued intimacy are critical to rebut allegations of deceit.
Delay in Filing FIR Undermines Criminal Intent
- A significant lapse between the alleged incident and FIR filing - especially exceeding two years - must be raised as a key factor negating criminal intent.
- Courts are likely to treat late complaints arising from personal disputes as civil matters unless clear evidence of initial fraud is presented.
Custodial Interrogation Not Automatic
- The Court reaffirmed that custodial interrogation is not mandatory even in non-bailable offences under B.N.S. if the accused is cooperative and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
- Anticipatory bail should be the norm where digital evidence supports the accused’s version and the complainant’s conduct contradicts the allegation of deception.
