The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a 26-year-old man accused of sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS, observing that the complainant's own statement indicated that the alleged promise to marry was made 'after' the physical relationship and not before. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406]

Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is punishable with a term which can extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by the accused, who was arrested on July 15, 2026 by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru.

After noting the complainant's statement, the court said:

“…From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that victim girl knew that petitioner was in a relationship with another girl and subsequently, he had approached her and had sexual intercourse with her. The alleged promise to marry victim girl is after the act of sexual intercourse committed by him…. In the statement made by the victim girl….she has clearly stated that prior to the petitioner making the promise to marry her, he had sexual intercourse.”

The bail application of the accused was earlier ejected by the Sessions Court on August 19.

According to the FIR, the petitioner and the complainant were colleagues at a clinic in Indiranagar. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, who was already in a relationship with another woman, made sexual advances towards her in January, and had intercourse with her without her consent.

It was further alleged that the accused had promised to marry her afterwards and continued to have a physical relationship with her on several occasions.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner's family objected to their marriage on account of caste and religion. The petitioner's family also allegedly pressurised the woman's employer to terminate her, followed by the accused himself refusing to marry the complainant despite the promise.

Senior Counsel Tomy Sebastian, appearing for the petitioner/accused, argued that the relationship had failed for reasons beyond the man's control. According to the accused, the complainant had subsequently approached the police with false allegations for extraneous reasons. He further submitted that the investigation was complete, and the accused had no criminal antecedents.

The state, on the other hand, pressed for rejecting the bail plea citing that the accused had in fact misled victim with a false promise of marriage.

The Court, after hearing the concerned parties, further clarified the legal requirement under Section 69 BNS:

“….For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023, a person should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without intention of fulfilling the same, not amounting to the offence of rape…”

The Court, while allowing the bail plea, also took into account the factors that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, the maximum punishment was ten years, and the petitioner had no other criminal antecedents.

Hence, upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs 1 lakh with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, the petitioner would be granted bail, the court said.