Consent Alone Cannot Decide Anticipatory Bail in False Promise of Marriage Case: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that merely asserting that a physical relationship was consensual cannot, by itself, establish an accused person’s entitlement to anticipatory bail in a case alleging sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The observation was made while considering an anticipatory bail application. The Court examined the allegations in the FIR, the nature of the relationship between the parties and the material contained in the case diary before declining to grant pre-arrest protection.
According to the prosecution, the accused and the prosecutrix had known each other for around six years and had allegedly been in a live-in relationship. It was alleged that during the relationship, the accused promised to marry her and that she entered into a physical relationship on the basis of that assurance.
The State opposed anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations were serious and that the investigation required examination of the prosecutrix’s statement and statements of other witnesses. The prosecution also submitted that the question of whether the promise to marry was false and whether the alleged consent was obtained through deceit required investigation.
The Court noted material in the case diary indicating that the prosecutrix had become pregnant and that the applicant allegedly attempted to terminate the pregnancy by providing her with pills purportedly intended for termination. These circumstances were considered while examining the application for anticipatory bail.
The High Court made an important distinction regarding consent. It observed that even if the prosecutrix had consented to the physical relationship, that fact alone could not be treated as giving the accused an unrestricted or unconditional right to act in any manner.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that the alleged consensual nature of the relationship, standing alone, was sufficient to secure anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that the defence of consent has to be examined in the context of the allegations and material available in the particular case.
The ruling is significant because cases involving an alleged promise of marriage often require courts to distinguish between a relationship that was consensual from the beginning but subsequently broke down and a situation where a promise to marry was allegedly false from its inception and was used to obtain sexual consent.
Recent decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court also demonstrate that the factual circumstances can lead to different outcomes. In one case, the Court granted anticipatory bail in a Section 69 BNS matter where the parties had allegedly been in a relationship for more than ten years and had repeatedly engaged in physical relations with each other’s consent. The Court relied on the circumstances and conduct of the parties while making clear that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.
In another case, the High Court granted anticipatory bail after considering the absence of coercion in the material before it and the conduct and circumstances of the parties.
The latest ruling, therefore, does not establish that every allegation involving a false promise of marriage automatically defeats an anticipatory bail application. Rather, it underscores that the court must examine the specific allegations, surrounding circumstances, available investigation material and the nature of the alleged consent before deciding whether pre-arrest protection is appropriate.
The central legal issue remains whether the alleged promise of marriage was false from the beginning and whether it played the legally relevant role alleged by the prosecution in obtaining the complainant’s consent. A subsequent failure to marry, by itself, is not necessarily identical to a promise that was dishonest from its inception.
The decision highlights that at the anticipatory-bail stage, the court does not simply decide the case on the accused’s assertion that the relationship was consensual. The surrounding evidence and allegations must be assessed to determine whether the accused has made out a case for the exceptional protection of anticipatory bail.
