Consent given under a false promise to marry must be proven as knowingly false from the outset for an accusation of rape to succeed; consensual relationships later turning sour do not invoke criminal liability.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS S ’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.113 of 2025 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 69 , 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2) and 79 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent No.2 Perused the record.

3. As seen from the record, the petitioner is aged about 22 years and respondent No.2 is aged about 23 years. They belong to the same community and they are relatives. The allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.1 is that he loved respondent No.2 when she was studying degree. Later, they participated in sexual intercourse for several times. Respondent No.2 alleges that the petitioner refused to marry her.

4. The respondent No.2 further alleges that the mother and brother of the petitioner did not agree for the marriage as the respondent No.2 is not maintaining good conduct and she is not suitable to become the daughter-in-law of their house. The mother and brother of the petitioner informed the petitioner that if he marries respondent No.2, they would commit suicide by consuming pesticides. The grievance of the respondent No.2 is that the petitioner had used deceitful words in the guise of love and participated in sexual intercourse for several times for several years. The petitioner did not keep his promise to marry her.

5. The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2025. He has been in judicial custody for the past 37 days. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Peddagottipadu Village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur District. He has got fixed abode. So far, nine witnesses have been examined. The material portion of the investigation is also completed. If he is enlarged on bail with some stringent conditions, he may not evade the process of law. The allegations made by respondent No.2 are required to be proved in the course of trial by the prosecution.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra , MANU/SC/0787/2025 wherein at para No.9 it is held as under:

“9...In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly³ to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC”.

7. In Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal , Spl Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7004 of 2025 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the definition of 'Rape' and would argue that the consent given by the minor is no consent and it would still be a rape. In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the