Where a complainant continues a physical relationship for a substantial period while knowing the accused is married, a claim of sexual exploitation based on a promise of marriage is not prima facie sustainable for the purpose of denying bail.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. G.K. Chauhan for learned Advocate Mr. B.K. Chauhan appearing on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11198047260116 of 2026 registered with Sihor Police Station, District Bhavnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant would submit that considering the role attributed to the applicant, and nature of the allegation levelled, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. It is further submitted that since the charge-sheet is filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. As against the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent – State has vehemently objected to the grant of regular bail. Learned APP has submitted that looking to the nature of offence and the role attributed to the present applicant as coming out from the charge-sheet, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-

i. Allegation being for offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, and whereas it would appear that the present applicant is the sole accused.

ii. The allegation being that the applicant had handed out a promise of marriage to the complainant and whereas under the said guise, he had established and continued physical relation.

iii. As against the same, it would prima facie appear that while the relationship between the parties had commenced in the year 2019, and while physical relations were established, thereafter the present applicant is stated to have got married with another with another person and whereas the relationship did not continue for some time and whereas thereafter, the relationship had started once again and whereas it is alleged that the present applicant had continue the relationship under the guise of getting divorce from his wife.

iv. Prima facie it would appear that the complainant, knowing that the applicant was married, and having established and continued a relationship with him for a substantial period of time, may not be heard to say that she he been physically abused/raped on the promise of marriage.

v. This Court has also considered that the applicant is in custody since 29.01.2026, the charge-sheet having been filed and the applicant having no antecedent.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit