The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a consensual physical relationship between an unmarried man and a married woman, which ends due to refusal to marry, does not by itself establish criminal intent under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court granted regular bail to an accused with no prior criminal record, emphasizing the prolonged period of judicial custody and the likelihood of extended trial duration.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sagar Das Manikpuri, aged 45, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 43/2025 registered at Police Station Antagarh, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. The case arises from an allegation that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with a married woman between 10.08.2023 and 21.04.2025 under the false pretext of marriage, attracting punishment under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Facts
- The complainant is a married woman with children who had been deserted by her husband prior to meeting the applicant
- The relationship between the applicant and the complainant began in August 2023 and was consensual in nature
- The complainant alleged that the applicant promised marriage but later refused to marry her
- The FIR was lodged on 11.11.2025, following the breakdown of the relationship
- The applicant has no prior criminal antecedents
- The charge-sheet was filed on or before the date of the bail application
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 11.11.2025
- The trial is expected to take a considerable period to conclude
Procedural History
- 10.08.2023: Alleged commencement of consensual relationship
- 21.04.2025: Alleged end of relationship and alleged last act of sexual intercourse
- 11.11.2025: FIR registered at Police Station Antagarh; applicant arrested same day
- Date unknown: Charge-sheet filed by prosecution
- 08.04.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel contended that the relationship was consensual and not forced. The FIR was filed only after the applicant refused to marry the complainant, indicating retaliation rather than criminal intent. The applicant has no criminal history and has been in custody for over 14 months with no trial conclusion in sight.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail on the ground that the charge-sheet had been filed and the offence under Section 69 BNS involved deception and sexual exploitation of a vulnerable woman. The State argued that the gravity of the offence warranted continued custody.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail with conditions to ensure his presence during trial, arguing that continued detention was unjustified given the nature of the allegations, his clean record, and the prolonged custody.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 mandates denial of regular bail solely on the basis of a charge-sheet being filed and the nature of the allegation, even when the relationship is consensual, the accused has no prior record, and the trial is likely to extend for years.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. It was submitted that the absence of force or coercion, the consensual nature of the relationship, and the motive behind the FIR (rejection of marriage proposal) negated the element of criminal intent. The prolonged custody of over 14 months without trial completion further justified release on bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State argued that Section 69 BNS criminalizes sexual intercourse under false pretences of marriage, and the filing of the charge-sheet indicated sufficient material to proceed. The State contended that the offence involved moral turpitude and exploitation of a woman in a vulnerable state, warranting denial of bail to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found that the complainant had been deserted by her husband and entered into a consensual relationship with the applicant. The Court noted that the allegation of force was not substantiated by any medical or corroborative evidence. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged only after the applicant declined to marry her, suggesting a retaliatory motive.
"It transpires that the victim is a married woman having children, who had deserted by her husband and thereafter came into contact with the applicant, a consensual physical relationship developed between them, however, when the relationship could not culminate into marriage and the applicant refused to marry her, the present FIR was lodged."
The Court emphasized that the applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 11.11.2025. The Court held that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not automatically disentitle an accused to bail, particularly where the allegations do not involve violence or coercion. The Court further noted that the trial’s protracted nature justified release on bail to prevent undue hardship.
The Court also considered the conditions under which bail could be granted without compromising the trial’s integrity, and imposed strict conditions to ensure the applicant’s presence and cooperation.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail to Sagar Das Manikpuri in Crime No. 43/2025 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He is to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall not seek adjournments when witnesses are present; (ii) He must appear before the trial court on all dates, personally or through counsel; (iii) If a proclamation is issued under Section 84 of BNSS and he fails to appear, proceedings under Section 209 BNS shall be initiated; (iv) He must appear personally on dates for opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS. Failure to comply with any condition may be treated as abuse of bail and result in cancellation. The trial court is directed to receive a certified copy of this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Motive Matter in Section 69 BNS Cases
- Practitioners must argue that Section 69 BNS requires proof of deception and lack of consent, not merely a broken promise of marriage
- Where the relationship is demonstrably consensual and the FIR follows rejection of marriage, the prosecution’s case may lack the essential ingredient of criminal intent
- Courts should distinguish between moral breach and criminal offence under this provision
Prolonged Custody Without Trial Justifies Bail
- A charge-sheet alone is insufficient to deny bail if the accused has no prior record and the trial is likely to extend beyond a reasonable period
- Courts must weigh the duration of custody against the likelihood of conviction and the nature of the offence
- Bail should be granted where custody exceeds 12 months without trial progress, absent exceptional circumstances
Strict but Reasonable Bail Conditions Are Permissible
- Courts may impose specific, enforceable conditions to ensure trial participation without imposing blanket denial of liberty
- Conditions must be proportionate and tied to the risk of non-appearance, not punitive in nature
- Failure to comply with conditions must trigger clear, lawful consequences under BNSS and BNS
