In a significant ruling under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to an accused charged under Section 69 BNS, holding that a prolonged consensual relationship between the parties negates the offence of rape by deception. The judgment underscores the importance of factual context in interpreting the newly enacted provision, offering critical guidance for similar cases involving allegations of sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mohammed Usman, was accused of committing an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which penalizes sexual intercourse by a person under a false promise of marriage. The allegation arose from a complaint filed by a 38-year-old woman, who claimed that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under the false pretext of marrying her. The petitioner, however, contended that their relationship was consensual and had lasted for over four years.
Key Facts
- The victim and the petitioner got acquainted in April 2021 and subsequently entered into a consensual relationship
- They resided together and maintained a romantic relationship for over four years
- In July 2025, the petitioner returned to his native place in Uttar Pradesh and married another woman
- On 04.10.2025, the victim filed a complaint with the Bandepalya Police Station, Bengaluru, alleging that the petitioner had deceived her under the false promise of marriage
- The petitioner was arrested on 27.11.2025 and remanded to judicial custody
Procedural History
- 04.10.2025: First Information Report (FIR) registered as Crime No. 143/2025 under Section 69 BNS
- 27.11.2025: Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody
- Investigation completed: Charge sheet filed against the petitioner
- 19.02.2026: Bail application (Criminal Misc. No. 799/2026) rejected by the Trial Court
- 2026: Present criminal petition (Crl.P No. 4034 of 2026) filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 before the Karnataka High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought enlargement on bail, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 69 BNS.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a consensual relationship spanning over four years, where the accused later married another person, could sustain a charge under Section 69 BNS, which criminalizes sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual and lasted for over four years
- There was no evidence of a false promise of marriage at the inception of the relationship
- The victim approached the police only after the relationship ended, which negates the allegation of deception
- The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
For the Respondent
- The victim alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage
- The petitioner married another woman while still in a relationship with the victim, which constitutes deception
- The gravity of the offence under Section 69 BNS warranted denial of bail
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the victim and the petitioner had been in a consensual relationship for over four years. The allegation of deception arose only after the petitioner married another woman and the relationship soured. The Court noted that Section 69 BNS is intended to penalize cases where sexual intercourse is obtained under a false promise of marriage, but it cannot be invoked in situations where the relationship was consensual and prolonged.
"From the aforesaid, it is very clear that the victim lady and the petitioner were in a consensual relationship for more than 4 years. Only after the said relationship failed, the victim lady had approached the police. Investigation of the case is completed and charge has been filed."
The Court further emphasized that the mere fact of the petitioner marrying another woman does not, by itself, establish deception under Section 69 BNS, particularly when the relationship was consensual and long-standing. The Court also considered the fact that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, reducing the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner. The Court directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 143/2025, subject to the following conditions:
- Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum
- Regular appearance before the Trial Court on all hearing dates unless exempted for valid reasons
- No direct or indirect threat or tampering with prosecution witnesses
- No involvement in similar offences in the future
- No leaving the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission until the case is disposed of
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consensual Relationships Negate Deception Under Section 69 BNS
- Section 69 BNS is designed to address cases where sexual intercourse is obtained under a false promise of marriage. However, courts are unlikely to sustain such charges where the relationship was consensual and prolonged
- Practitioners should argue that Section 69 BNS requires proof of deception at the inception of the relationship, not merely a subsequent failure to marry
Bail Likely Where Investigation Is Complete
- Courts may be inclined to grant bail in cases under Section 69 BNS where the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, as the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is significantly reduced
- The completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet are critical factors in bail considerations under Section 483 BNSS
Burden of Proof Lies on the Prosecution
- The prosecution must establish that the accused made a false promise of marriage at the time of engaging in sexual intercourse. A consensual relationship spanning several years weakens this claim
- Defence counsel should emphasize the duration of the relationship and the absence of evidence showing deception at the outset
