Anticipatory bail may be granted in cases involving allegations of physical relations under a promise of marriage when the parties are consenting adults, provided the court finds it appropriate to ensure the accused cooperates with the investigation and does not obstruct the judicial process.

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Mr. S.K. Shandiliya, learned counsel for complainant/respondent no.2.

4. Present anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 0069 of 2026, registered under Sections 351(2), 352, 69 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Cantt., District Dehradun.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that the applicant and the informant were working in the same branch of a bank and had become acquainted with each other during the course of their employment. It is alleged that the applicant established physical relations with the informant on the assurance of marriage and continued such relationship on several occasions. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests made by the informant to formalize the relationship through marriage, the applicant avoided the same on one pretext or another. Subsequently, upon knowing that the applicant was intending to marry another woman, the informant lodged the present F.I.R.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the applicant and the informant were merely colleagues and shared cordial relations owing to their employment in the same bank; that, no physical relationship was ever established between the parties and that the applicant, being a colleague and friend, had occasionally extended financial assistance to the informant whenever required.

7. He would further submit that the informant is a major, educated and gainfully employed woman; that, even assuming, without admitting, that any relationship existed between the parties, the same was between two consenting adults who were fully aware of the consequences of their actions. It is argued that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not attracted and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail, if granted.

8. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant. However, they do not dispute that both the applicant and the informant are major persons and were employed in the same bank.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

10. The record reflects that the applicant and the informant were acquainted with each other during the course of their employment and were working in the same branch of a bank. The allegations made in the F.I.R., the nature of the relationship between the parties and the attendant facts and circumstances are matters which require investigation.

11. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

12. Accordingly, in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with F.I.R. No. 0069 of 2026, registered at Police Station