Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Abhishek Rathod, S/o. Late Ashok Ramappa Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State By Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented By SPP – Respondent
ORDER :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
1. This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No. 160/2025 of Basavanagudi Police Station registered for offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP who is assisted by learned counsel for defacto complainant.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that initially FIR has been registered for offence under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS against petitioner and his mother. Thereafter charge sheet has been filed only against this petitioner for offense under Section 69 of BNS. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the victim is aged about 44 years and petitioner is aged about 30 years. Victim lady is a divorcee. Victim lady and petitioner came in contact with each other by Bumble App which is a friendship app. They had sexual intercourse from 04.04.2024 in different places at different dates. Earlier friend of this victim lady had filed a complaint against the petitioner registered in crime No. 162/2025 of Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi wherein petitioner had been arrested and he was granted bail on 05.11.202
The Court found that consensual relations under a promise of marriage do not always constitute rape, contingent upon the absence of bad faith in the promise.
Misconception of fact – Merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, it would not, by itself, amount to rape.
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....
The court determined that lack of evidence justified granting bail to the accused despite serious allegations.
The court emphasized the distinction between consensual relationships and allegations of rape, ruling that mere allegations without evidence of coercion do not suffice for criminal proceedings.
A consensual relationship should not automatically be interpreted as rape on the basis of a broken promise of marriage, emphasizing the need to consider context and intentions behind consent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that simply establishing a physical relationship on the promise of marriage would not attract the offense under Section 376 IPC.
The court distinguished between consensual sex and rape, emphasizing the victim's adult status and consent, leading to the granting of anticipatory bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
