Anticipatory bail may be denied where there is a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS, specifically where a physical relationship was established based on a promise of marriage which was subsequently breached.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manan S. Doshi for the appellant and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State.

2. The present appellant having been arraigned as accused in the FIR bearing C.R. No.11191036260006 of 2026 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS”) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “Atrocities Act”), has approached this Court inter alia seeking for anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage may not be necessary. Besides, the appellant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of anticipatory bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, this Court is disinclined to consider the present application for the following reasons.

(i) The FIR inter alia alleges offence punishable under the BNS as well as offences punishable under the Atrocities Act, it would appear that insofar as the aspect with to Atrocities Act, the allegation against the appellant being that though the appellant knew the caste of the complainant and yet, insofar as the aspect with regard to marriage is concerned, the appellant had asked the complainant to hide her caste etc. While as far as the offences under the Atrocities Act are concerned, it would prima facie appear to this Court that there may not be relevant allegations, whereby the complainant could allege that the relationship did not fructify on account of the caste of the complainant, yet, perusing the FIR, it would prima facie appear that there are prima facie ingredients for offence punishable under the provisions of the BNS. The allegation being that while the appellant and the complainant were studying together, the appellant had induced the complainant to enter into a relationship with the promise of marriage and whereas, it would appear that later on, more particularly after having established physical relationship under the guise of marriage, the appellant had resiled from his promise.

(ii) While it is attempted to be submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant does not have resources to marry the complainant, more particularly the appellant having got a job very recently, it would appear to this Court that the allegations for offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS are fortified on account of such submission, more particularly basis an appointment order which is annexed with the present appeal.

To this Court it would appear that while the appellant not having any resources, cannot be equated with the fact that the appellant has got a job offer where he may not be paid substantially. The appellant starting to earn, the appellant could not turn back and say that he though having established a relationship under the pretext of getting married with the complainant, would not have resources to marry her.

(iii) Learned Advocate for the appellant would also refer to an application/complaint given by the present appellant to the concerned police station as regards the threats being administered by the complainant and whereas it would appear to t