Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Main Points and Insights:
Nature of Offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS: Several cases clarify that offences under Section 64(2)(m) BNS are generally related to failure to keep promises, not false promises or acts of deception. For instance, it is a case of failing to keep up a promise by the petitioner and not a false promise, hence, offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is not made out ["Ranjit Kumar Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs State of Orissa - Orissa"].
Legal Proceedings and Court Judgments: Courts have dismissed or rejected petitions for anticipatory or regular bail when the facts suggest prima facie evidence of offences under Section 64(2)(m). For example, the application under Section 250 BNSS seeking discharge from the offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS was rejected on the grounds... that such a decision is against the weight of evidence ["Ranjit Kumar Das @ Ranjeet Kumar Das vs State of Orissa - Orissa"].
Misuse and False Allegations: Several cases highlight instances where cases are alleged to be false or motivated, often linked to civil disputes or harassment. For example, it is a false case alleged against the petitioner after harassing him brutally ["N. Ramachandra Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"] and it is a case and counter ["SRI MOHAMMED AYAZ PASHA vs THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33477"].
Quashing of Proceedings: Courts have exercised their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or analogous provisions to quash FIRs or proceedings when allegations are unsupported by evidence or are misused. The present case is a classic illustration of the misuse of police machinery ["ABDUL REHMAN v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"] and the proceedings are quashed... to prevent abuse of process of law ["PALLETI PRABHAKAR REDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Rejection of Bail Applications: Bail is often rejected where the offences are serious, heinous, or where the accused is a police officer or in custody. For instance, since the petitioner was Police Constable, in case of his release on bail, there was likelihood of threatening of witnesses ["SMT. SANGEETA W/O SURAJ SALUNKE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]. Conversely, some petitions are allowed when allegations are found unsupported, or parties have amicably settled disputes ["Ibrahim vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep - Madras"].
Legal Interpretation of Section 64 of BNS: Courts have clarified that offences under Section 64 are punishable under Section 65 of BNS, and provisions like Section 482 BNSS are not applicable to offences under Section 64. Section 64 of BNS is not punishable under Section 65 of BNS; therefore, Section 482 of BNSS has no application ["N. Ramachandra Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"], ["N. Ramachandra Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh"].
Settlements and Discontinuance: Some cases have been disposed of based on amicable settlement or withdrawal of prosecution, emphasizing the discretionary power of courts to prevent misuse and promote harmony ["Chetan @ Chetan Kumar vs Chandrika - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The case law surrounding Section 64 BNS indicates that courts are cautious in proceeding with cases where allegations are weak, false, or motivated by civil disputes. The courts emphasize that offences under Section 64(2)(m) are primarily about failure to fulfill promises, and not necessarily criminal acts warranting harsh punishment or continued prosecution. Many petitions for bail or quashing FIRs are granted where evidence is lacking or allegations are unsupported, reflecting a tendency to prevent misuse of law. Conversely, serious or heinous offences, or cases involving police personnel, tend to result in rejection of bail or continuation of proceedings.
References:
In the evolving landscape of Indian criminal law, Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has become a focal point for cases involving rape, particularly those under pretext of marriage or false promises. Queries like 64 BNS ka bail petition case law and judgement are common as individuals seek clarity on when courts grant bail in such serious offenses. This post delves into relevant judgments, highlighting principles such as presumption of innocence, prohibition of pre-trial punishment, and factors influencing bail decisions under BNS Section 64, alongside Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provisions like Section 482.
While no single case directly ties 64 BNS to Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) in the reviewed documents—despite mentions of BEL in arbitration and employment disputes—this analysis focuses on criminal bail petitions under Section 64 BNS, drawing from pertinent legal precedents. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Section 64 BNS addresses rape, including scenarios like sexual intercourse by deceitful means or under promise of marriage. Bail petitions in these cases often invoke BNSS Section 482 for anticipatory bail or regular bail, emphasizing that bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Vikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450
Courts typically assess:- Nature and gravity of allegations- Evidence availability and investigation status- Risk of witness tampering or absconding- Accused's cooperation and background
Recent judgments underscore judicial caution in granting bail for heinous crimes but prioritize constitutional rights against arbitrary detention.
A recurring theme is that pre-trial punishment is prohibited; bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure, and the applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Vikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450 In one case, the court granted bail after noting the investigation was complete and no custodial interrogation was needed. The applicant faced allegations of sexual exploitation under pretext of marriage, including threats and financial coercion, but consensual relations were claimed. Vikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450
Similarly, the presumption of innocence applies until proven guilty, and pre-trial punishment is prohibited under law. Maninder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 851 Here, the prosecutrix refused medico-legal examination, weakening evidentiary weight, leading to interim bail as the applicant joined the investigation voluntarily.
Bail is often granted when evidence suggests consensual or live-in relationships rather than coercion. In a petition under BNS Sections 64(1), 69, 140(3), etc., the court noted allegations were deemed false and motivated by ulterior motives, with no immediate reporting or coercion evidence. Bail was allowed with conditions, stressing bail cannot be denied merely as a form of punishment and considering the totality of circumstances. Saood vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 455
Another ruling highlighted the victim's voluntary actions: The court granted bail based on the victim's voluntary actions and lack of allegations of coercion, emphasizing the importance of her statements in the bail decision. The minor victim stated she left home voluntarily, denying abduction or assault under BNS 64(2)(m) and POCSO. AVINASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 353
Courts favor bail when prosecution lacks substantial evidence. Bail may be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, and there is no apprehension of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice. FIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437 No obscene videos were recovered despite threats claims, and the relationship was mutual before souring.
In employment-related BEL contexts, though not directly under BNS 64, principles of procedural fairness echo: disputes over promotions and contracts emphasize non-discrimination. B.raju, Hyd vs Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18419 However, criminal bail focuses more acutely on mens rea absence.
Here's a breakdown of select cases:
Anticipatory Bail in Exploitation CasesVikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450: Applicant transferred Rs.40,000 for abortion and refused marriage, per complaint. Court granted bail post-investigation, ruling pre-trial punishment is prohibited.
Live-in Relationship DefenseSaood vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 455: Allegations under multiple BNS sections including 64 dismissed as baseless due to known relationship; interim protection granted.
Victim's Statements PivotalAVINASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 353: Bail under BNS 64(2)(m) and POCSO allowed as victim denied force, investigation concluded.
Refusal of Medical ExamManinder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 851: Rape alleged in March 2024; prosecutrix refused exam. Bail confirmed, upholding innocence presumption.
No Recovered EvidenceFIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437: Sexual assault with threat claims; no videos found, consensual history argued—bail granted.
For BEL-related civil matters, arbitration under cases like Larsen and Toubro Limited VS Director (Other Units) M/S Bharat Electronics Limited - Allahabad (2023) discusses arbitrator appointments, paralleling procedural rigor in criminal bail. Land disputes V. Srinivasaraju VS Bharat Electronics Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 584 and procurement V. D. Satheesan M. L. A VS State Of Kerala, Represented By The Chief Secretary - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 938 highlight contractual obligations, but BNS 64 centers on personal liberty.
Though not Section 64, Section 199 BNS (public servant disobedience) was quashed: BNS is not legally sustainable... essential ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled. A police officer awaited document verification in good faith. MUKESH KUMAR SHAKYA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6612 This reinforces mens rea requirement, applicable analogously to bail scrutiny.
Quotes like A public servant cannot be prosecuted for disobedience under Section 199 of BNS when actions are taken in good faith MUKESH KUMAR SHAKYA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6612 extend to requiring clear evidence of mens rea or deliberate disobedience.
While primary focus is BNS 64 bail, BEL appears in arbitration (appointment of arbitrators Larsen and Toubro Limited VS Director (Other Units) M/S Bharat Electronics Limited - Allahabad (2023)), property (encroachment V. Srinivasaraju VS Bharat Electronics Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 584), and employment (promotions B.raju, Hyd vs Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18419). No direct overlap with 64 BNS, suggesting query clarification needed. EVM manufacturing by BEL Association for Democratic Reforms VS Election Commission of India - 2024 4 Supreme 129 is electoral, unrelated.
Bail under Section 64 BNS is not automatic but hinges on evidence paucity, consent claims, and rights protection. Courts consistently affirm: innocence presumption, no punitive denial, and circumstance totality. Vikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450Saood vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 455
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize investigation completion and cooperation.- Victim statements and evidence gaps aid bail.- Pre-trial detention must justify strictly.
For precise advice, seek professional counsel. Stay updated on BNS transitions from IPC.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes public judgments for informational purposes. Laws vary by facts; it does not constitute legal advice.
References:- MUKESH KUMAR SHAKYA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6612Vikram Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 450Saood vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 455AVINASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 353Maninder Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 851FIRASAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - 2025 Supreme(RAJ) 437Larsen and Toubro Limited VS Director (Other Units) M/S Bharat Electronics Limited - Allahabad (2023)V. Srinivasaraju VS Bharat Electronics Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 584B.raju, Hyd vs Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 18419
#BNSSection64,#BailLawIndia,#CriminalJustice
Annexure-2 series, it is a case of failing to keep up a promise by the petitioner and not a false promise, hence, offence under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is not made out. ... Annexure-1 and as a result, Mahila P.S Case No.39 of 2025 was registered under Section 64(2)(m) and 351(2) BNS besides Section 27 Arms Act. At the end of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the petitioner deleting the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. ... Case No.245 of 2025 by the learn....
/64[1], BNS, 2023. ... This criminal petition is preferred under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 seeking setting aside of [i] a First Information Report [FIR] registered as Dispur Police Station Case no. 742/2025 under Sections 329[4]/64[1]/62/351[2], Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023; [2] Charge-Sheet ... It is true that the ingredients of the offence under Section 64[1], BNS singularly would not be a....
It was submitted, petitioner was law 36 year old agriculturist and permanent resident of Bavapur village and would not jump bail. Hence, prayed for granting bail on any conditions. BNS punishable with imprisonment for 2 years; criminal intimidation under Section 351 (2) of BNS punishable with imprisonment for 2 years. Since offences under Sections 64 Sections 115(2) , 126(2) , 329(4), 74, 76, 64, 62 , 352 a href="./..
Father of the petitioner lodged a case against father in law of the victim on 15.7.2013. In the light of the history of the civil litigation pending between the parties indicates it is a false case alleged against the petitioner after harassing him brutally and prays to allow the petition. ... Further more for the offence under Section 64 of BNS which is punishable under section 65 of BNS, Section 482 of BNSS has no application and prays to dismiss the petit....
BNS . However, as Section 64 of BNS is not punishable under Section 65 of BNS ’ BNS S has no application for the offence under Section 64 of BNS which is punishable under Section 65 of BNS . ... Considering the said submission, this Court dismissed the petition vide Order dated 03.12.2024 on the ground of non-applicability of Section 482 of BNS S for the offence under Section 64 of In the ....
court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. ... (2)(m), 89 of BNS. ... In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. ... In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. ... He also submits that the m....
and 74 BNS. ... Though the petitioner has been charged for the offence under Section 109 BNS, it is seen that the attack is said to have been made with hands and the allegations, at best would only disclose the offence under Section 326 IPC (118(2) BNS). 6. ... The defacto complainant does not wish to pursue the case. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the impugned final report pending trial. ... Accordingly, the impugned final report is quashed an....
Father of the petitioner lodged a case against father in law of the victim on 15.7.2013. In the light of the history of the civil litigation pending between the parties indicates it is a false case alleged against the petitioner after harassing him brutally and prays to allow the petition. ... A case has been registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 64 read with 62, 118(2), 351(3) BNS. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. L....
This petition is for regular bail by sole accused, in Crime no.85/2024 for offences under Sections 137 (2), 87 and 64 of BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO. ... NO.977/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE FTSC-I, BALLARI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 137(2), 87 AND 64 OF BNS, 2023 AND SECTION 87, 64 OF BNS 2023, SECTION 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012 BEFORE P.D. HALLI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.85/2024. ... Halli Police Station for of....
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reads as under: " Section 199 – Public servant disobeying direction under law - BNS is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside as the essential ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
8.2. In addition to this, prosecutrix has further mentioned in the complaint that applicant had transferred a sum of Rs.40,000/- in her account for aborting the foetus and also refused to marry her. Not only this, the applicant had also threatened to kill her, as well as, her family. Prosecutrix, as well as, her family members had also talked with the applicant, regarding their marriage, but, the applicant refused to solemnize the marriage. Lastly, apprehending the threat to her life, as well as, to her family members, prosecutrix has prayed that action be taken against the applicant. 8.4. D....
6. The applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued, under Section 482 of the BNSS. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 5. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the allegations with regard to the commission of offence punishable under Sections 64, 137(2) and 127(2) of the BNS are baseless. 4. Asserting the fact that the applicant and prosecutrix were in live-in relationship, as such, are well known to their family members, friends and neighbours....
The court granted bail based on the victim's voluntary actions and lack of allegations of coercion, emphasizing the importance of her statements in the bail decision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 22 years has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR dated 21.12.2024 lodged by the brother of the victim Mst.’M’, learned counsel submitted that in the FIR, it was stated that the victim Mst.’M’ had left the house on 20.12.2024 without informing anyone. The complainant in the FIR suspected that ....
10.7. As per the status report, the complainant had mentioned, in her complaint, that she was raped by the applicant lastly in March, 2024, as such, she does not want to get herself medico-legally examined. Later on, the police added Section 351 (2) of the BNS and the prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital, Janjehali, for her medico-legal examination, where, she has refused to undergo medico-legal examination. 10.5. On the basis of the said facts, the complainant had prayed that action be taken against the applicant. 10.6. Upon this, the police registered the case under Section 64....
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner who is aged about 22 years committed forcible sexual assault-rape upon the prosecutrix-‘T’, who is a mature married woman on multiple occasions by threatening her to circulate her obscene videos and photographs on social media platforms. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the prosecutrix- ‘T’ was having mutual relationship with the present petitioner. However, on relations between them turni....
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
