#Section 69 BNS

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed an FIR under BNS Section 69 after parties amicably settled personal disputes, aligning with the Supreme Court's approach in Madhukar. The ruling reinforces Section 482 CrPC's role in quashing FIRs where compromise is genuine and not coercive.

Karnataka High Court rules that allegations of 'false promise of marriage' under Section 69 BNS require proof of deceitful intent from the outset. Mere breach of promise or subsequent withdrawal does not suffice for criminal liability, reinforcing the need for thorough investigation before quashing FIRs in such cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail under the SC/ST Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, emphasizing that delayed FIR filing and the accused's lack of criminal antecedents weaken the prosecution's case. The ruling reinforces that bail considerations under special statutes must account for procedural lapses and individual circumstances.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that consensual sexual relations based on a promise of marriage do not automatically constitute an offence under BNS Section 69. The court emphasized that criminal liability arises only when there is clear evidence of deceitful intent to exploit, not mere broken promises - a critical threshold protecting genuine relationships from misuse of criminal law.

Allahabad High Court ruled that allegations of rape under false promise of marriage cannot stand if the victim was already married at the time of the alleged incident. The court granted bail, emphasizing the absence of a prima facie case under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, where the victim’s marital status negates the claim of deception.

Karnataka High Court rules that a prolonged consensual relationship, even if initially premised on a marriage promise, undermines the offence of rape by deception under Section 69 BNS. The judgment sets a precedent for bail considerations in similar cases involving disputed consent.

Allahabad High Court grants bail in a false promise of marriage case under Section 69 BNS, emphasizing the statute's non-retrospective applicability and the unexplained two-year delay in filing the FIR. The ruling underscores that consensual relationships predating BNS cannot be prosecuted under the new law, offering relief to accused facing similar charges.

MP High Court rules that anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS can be granted without custodial interrogation if the relationship was consensual, prolonged, and digital evidence (WhatsApp chats, photographs) corroborates the absence of deceit. The ruling emphasizes proportionality, rejecting mechanical detention where no coercion or fraud is established.

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench ruled that consensual sexual relations under a promise of marriage do not constitute an offence under BNS Section 69 unless the false intent existed at the very start of the relationship. The court set aside the charge-sheet, emphasizing that subsequent breach of promise alone is insufficient to establish criminal liability.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that even if a consensual relationship leads to pregnancy and is disclosed to both families, it does not automatically satisfy the elements of Sections 69 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This sets a critical precedent for anticipatory bail in cases involving adult consensual relationships, reinforcing that mens rea and coercive intent must be proven - not assumed from social or biological outcomes.

Chhattisgarh High Court grants anticipatory bail in Section 69 BNS case, holding consensual relationship defence valid when physical relations occurred without force or deceit.

Chhattisgarh High Court grants anticipatory bail in Section 69 BNS case, holding that consensual sexual relationships between adults, even if unfulfilled promises of marriage, do not automatically attract criminal liability.