The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a consensual romantic relationship followed by a refusal to marry cannot, by itself, justify criminal prosecution under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that personal autonomy and the absence of dishonest intent must be central to the evaluation of such cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Yogendra Dirhe, is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 171/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, under Sections 62(2)(m), 69, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegations stem from a relationship initiated on Instagram in June 2025, where the victim, a major woman, claimed the applicant falsely represented himself as belonging to the same caste, proposed marriage, and subsequently engaged in sexual relations under the pretext of matrimony.
Key Facts
- The victim and the applicant connected on Instagram in June 2025
- The applicant sent repeated friend requests, claiming shared caste identity
- The victim accepted the request and engaged in regular communication
- On 25.10.2025, the applicant met the victim at Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur, and booked a hotel room
- Physical relations occurred over two days under the representation of impending marriage
- The victim became pregnant and informed the applicant
- The applicant allegedly provided abortion pills, leading to miscarriage
- The applicant subsequently refused to marry the victim
- The victim filed a written complaint on 01.02.2026
- The FIR was registered on the same date
Procedural History
- 25.10.2025: Alleged sexual encounter and pregnancy
- 01.02.2026: Victim files written complaint at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur
- 01.02.2026: Crime No. 171/2026 registered under Sections 62(2)(m), 69, 296 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023
- 16.03.2026: Anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of BNS, 2023 before the Chhattisgarh High Court
The Parties' Positions
Applicant’s Position: The applicant contends he is innocent and falsely implicated. He asserts that the relationship was consensual, the victim was a major adult, and the FIR was filed solely due to his refusal to marry. He argues there is no evidence of fraud, coercion, or deceit at the time of the relationship.
State’s Position: The State opposes bail, arguing the allegations disclose a serious offence involving deception, exploitation, and physical harm. The objector, represented by Mr. Aditya Khare, supports the State’s stance, emphasizing the vulnerability of the victim and the gravity of the alleged acts.
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, requesting protection from custodial interrogation and a fair opportunity to defend himself during trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the grant of anticipatory bail where the alleged offence arises from a consensual relationship followed by a refusal to marry, and whether the mere assertion of pregnancy and abortion without evidence of fraudulent intent at the outset constitutes a cognizable offence under Sections 62(2)(m), 69, 296 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the principle that consent negates criminality in sexual relationships between adults, absent coercion or deception at the time of intercourse. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest must not be automatic and that the court must examine the prima facie truth of allegations. He emphasized that refusal to marry, however morally questionable, does not transform a consensual relationship into a criminal act under BNS. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of medical or digital evidence of deception weaken the prosecution’s case.
For the Respondent/State
The State and objector contended that the applicant’s conduct constituted deception under Section 62(2)(m) BNS, which penalizes inducing a woman to believe he will marry her to obtain sexual relations. They argued that the act of providing abortion pills and subsequent abandonment amounts to cruelty and exploitation under Section 69 BNS. They relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to assert that courts must not interfere with police investigations at the bail stage, especially in cases involving sexual exploitation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the allegations and found that the victim was a major woman who voluntarily engaged in communication and physical relations. The Court noted that while the applicant’s conduct may be morally reprehensible, the law requires proof of dishonest intent at the time of inducing the relationship, not merely subsequent refusal to marry. The Court observed:
"The mere fact that the relationship ended in refusal to marry, even after pregnancy and abortion, does not, by itself, establish the essential ingredient of fraudulent intent under Section 62(2)(m) of the BNS, 2023."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors, coercion, or impersonation. It held that the FIR, while legally registered, appears to be a civil dispute dressed as a criminal matter. The Court emphasized that Section 482 BNS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process, and that granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances serves the ends of justice. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the trial but found no compelling reason to subject the applicant to custodial arrest at this stage.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed that in the event of arrest, Yogendra Dirhe shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety of like sum, subject to the following conditions: (a) No intimidation of witnesses; (b) No interference with the trial; (c) Mandatory appearance before the trial court on all dates; (d) Submission of Aadhaar card and colored photograph with Aadhaar number for verification; (e) No commission of any similar offence in future. The Court directed compliance with these conditions without delay.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent and Refusal to Marry Do Not Automatically Constitute Fraud
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 62(2)(m) BNS requires proof of fraudulent intent at the inception of the relationship, not merely subsequent conduct
- Mere pregnancy or abortion following consensual relations cannot be the sole basis for invoking criminal liability
- Courts must scrutinize whether deception was present at the time of sexual intercourse, not merely in the aftermath
Anticipatory Bail Is Warranted Where FIR Appears to Be a Civil Dispute
- The High Court has signaled that Section 482 BNS can be invoked to prevent misuse of criminal process in personal disputes
- Applications for anticipatory bail in cases involving broken engagements or post-relationship allegations should be evaluated on the presence of mens rea, not emotional consequences
- Lawyers should emphasize the absence of prior criminal history, the adult status of the complainant, and the lack of corroborative evidence when seeking bail
Procedural Safeguards Must Precede Custodial Arrest
- Courts are increasingly requiring that arrest be a last resort in cases involving consensual adult relationships
- The conditions imposed here - Aadhaar verification, witness protection, and mandatory court appearances - set a new benchmark for bail in sensitive personal offence cases
- Practitioners should draft bail applications that explicitly link the absence of flight risk and threat to investigation to the nature of the allegations
