A consensual relationship that later turns sour or a breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless the promise was false from the inception with no intention of fulfilling it, used solely to obtain sexual consent.

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 BNSS’), seeking to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.62 of 2026 of Parvathipuram Town Police Station, Parvathipuram Manyam District, registered against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376, 417, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P.Act’), Section 5(l) read with 6, 12 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. Sri Bonu Ram Shankar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated by the police. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole earning member of the family and, therefore, his incarceration would cause undue hardship to his dependents. The petitioner undertakes to strictly adhere to any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint itself discloses a long-standing love affair between the petitioner and the de- facto complainant and that the relationship was consensual in nature. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the report, as the alleged incidents pertain to the period from 2016 onwards, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 10.04.2026. The learned counsel submits that the dispute arose only after the marriage alliance between the parties failed. In light of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel prays that the present petition be allowed in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, Mr. K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the allegations against him are grave and serious in nature. He contended that the petitioner sexually exploited the victim for several years on the false promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her by demanding dowry. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined.

5. The prosecution also apprehends that, if released on bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence, thereby hampering the fair and effective investigation of the case. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, he prayed that the present bail application be dismissed.

6. Ms. Ayesha Azma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. While reiterating the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, she contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, as he sexually exploited the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage over a prolonged period. She further submitted that, though the petitioner initially agreed to marry the de facto complainant, he subsequently refused to do so. It is further submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner are grave and serious in nature. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

8. As seen from the record, the petitioner/Accused No.1 is aged about 25 years. The victim/de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 is also aged about 25 years. The de-facto complainant lodged a report against the petitioner on 10.04.2026 stating that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant have been in a live-in relationship since 2018 onwards. She alleges that the petitioner/Accused No.1 had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions under the pretext of marrying her. The grie