The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the accused's assertion that the relationship between the parties was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive entitlement to seek anticipatory bail under Section 69 BNS (sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or false promise to marry). [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 399]

The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari observed:

"However, at this stage, the mere assertion that the relationship was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail".

Per the prosecution, the prosecutrix and the applicant were known to each other for six years and were allegedly in a live-in relationship. It was alleged that during their relationship, the applicant promised the prosecutrix that he would marry her.

Based on the said promise, he established a physical relationship with her. However, subsequently, the applicant allegedly refused to marry the prosecutrix. She later filed an FIR against the applicant.

The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was falsely implicated in the matter and that there was no independent or legally sustainable material to establish the allegations. It was submitted that the ingredients of the offence are not made out against the applicant.

The counsel submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix were in a consensual and continued relationship for six years and that the mere fact that the relationship did not ultimately culminate in marriage by itself cannot be treated as sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 69 of BNS.

The counsel argued that the present FIR was a counter-blast and an afterthought. The applicant had also allegedly advanced a sum of approximately ₹1 Lakh to the prosecutrix and, upon demand of repayment, the prosecutrix filed the present FIR to exert undue pressure upon him.

The counsel for the State argued that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It was argued that the prosecutrix has specifically alleged that the applicant made a promise to marry and, based on that promise, established a physical relationship with her.

It was submitted that the said allegations required a proper investigation and that other material, including the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, is required to be collected and examined.

The court noted from the case diary that the prosecutrix became pregnant and the applicant allegedly attempted to terminate her pregnancy and provided her with pills purportedly intended for termination of the pregnancy.

The bench emphasized,

"The fact that the prosecutrix may have consented to the physical relationship does not, by itself, imply that such consent conferred an unrestricted or unconditional right upon the applicant to act in any manner whatsoever".

Examining the allegations in the FIR, the nature of the allegations and defence raised by the applicant, the bench refused to grant relief of anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.

For Applicant: Advocate Shiv Kumar Kashyap

For State: Advocate Somesh Gupta