Consensual relationships without fraudulent intent do not sustain allegations of deceit under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

4 10-12-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Khagaul Police Station Case No. 158 of 2025, disclosing offences under Sections 126 (2), 115(2) and 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the petitioner on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, has exploited the informant sexually, mentally and emotionally and established continuous physical relationship with her. The informant came in contact with the petitioner and they gradually developed a deep emotional connection with each other. The petitioner gave repeated assurance of marriage and upon that assurance, the informant accepted and started live-in relationship with the petitioner at a separate flat situated at Patliputra. It has also been alleged that the informant and the petitioner started live-in relationship after disclosure of their past life to each other and whenever the informant tried to back out, the petitioner used to emotionally blackmail her by cutting his hand and banging his head of which the informant has got a proof. The relationship started in the year 2019 and in the year 2020 when informant insisted for marriage, the petitioner took her to the temple and filled her parting on the head with vermilion and assured her for formal marriage. The informant conceived in the year 2022 and the petitioner in the beginning advised her to get the pregnancy aborted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 35 years of age and the informant is also major and her age is 31 years. Both were in live-in relationship since 2019 and the relationship continued for about six years. The petitioner and the informant stayed in a separate flat at Patliputra and having consensual physical relationship for the last six years. When the petitioner came to know that the informant was a member of the honey trap syndicate and a huge amount of about Rs. 18 lakhs was taken on one pretext or other from the petitioner and was transferred in the bank account of the informant, the petitioner decided to part his way with the informant. There is no allegation in the FIR that from the very beginning, the intention of the petitioner was not to marry the informant. It was due to subsequent event that the petitioner refused to perform marriage. It has further been submitted that prior to entering into relationship with the petitioner in 2019, the informant had a pregnancy with another boy in 2017 which was aborted in a hospital and during course of investigation, the police collected the evidence regarding abortion done on the informant in 2017. When the petitioner came to know about the conduct of the informant and the fact that petitioner fell in a trap, the mother of the petitioner submitted a written report before the Khagaul Police on 04.05.2025 and subsequently on 07.05.2025, the mother of the petitioner lodged detailed complaint before the D.G.P., Bihar. The FIR has been lodged by the informant on

05.05.2025.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Jyoti Kumari, learned counsel for the Informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner by the deceitful means, allured the informant to enter into relationship and established physical relationship with the informant. On the basis of promise of marriage, the petitioner established physical relationship with the informant but the petitioner has not fulfilled the promise and when petitioner performed engagement with some other girl, the present FIR has been lodged. Accordingly, her submission is that petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail inasmuch as he is going to perform marriage with another girl after g