Back
Grants Bail in Promise to Marry Case Citing Lack of
In a significant ruling on the scope of , the granted to a man accused of , observing that his subsequent attempt to seek the victim's family's approval negated the .
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the single-judge bench, allowed the bail petition filed by Chethan Kumar S, the accused in Crime No.189/2026 registered by . The offences invoked included Section 69 ( or promise to marry without intention) and Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 89, and 352 of the BNS.
Background: A Relationship, a Promise, and a Refusal
The case stems from a complaint lodged on , by a 35-year-old woman. According to the FIR, the woman became acquainted with Chethan in , and by they were regularly exchanging messages. Chethan proposed marriage, and the woman consented. In , they stayed overnight at the Adventure Camp Resort, where they allegedly had sexual intercourse based on Chethan's promise to marry her.
Crucially, after this incident, Chethan visited the woman's home and informed her mother that he was ready and willing to marry her. However, the mother refused the proposal. This fact was also confirmed in the victim's statement recorded under .
Chethan was arrested on , and his bail application before the was rejected on , prompting him to approach the High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS.
Court's Reasoning: Intention Matters
The core legal question was whether Chethan's actions amounted to a "
" or a promise made
"without any intention of fulfilling the same"
— the essential ingredients of Section 69 BNS.
Justice Shetty examined the sequence of events and found that Chethan's visit to the victim's mother, expressing his willingness to marry, was inconsistent with an absence of intention. The court noted that it was the mother, not the accused, who rejected the marriage proposal.
"For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, , accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by or by . From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner, who allegedly had promised to marry the first informant had approached her mother but the proposal was refused by the mother of the first informant. In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant."
The court also considered that Chethan had been in custody since , and that a major portion of the investigation was already complete, further tilting the balance in favor of bail.
Key Observations
The judgment underscores a critical distinction: a promise to marry that is genuinely made but frustrated by external circumstances (here, the mother's refusal) does not automatically constitute deceit under Section 69 BNS. The court's observation highlights that the intention at the time of the promise is the decisive factor.
Conditions of Bail
Allowing the petition, Justice Shetty directed Chethan's release on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Execution of a of ₹1,00,000 with two of the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
- Regular appearance before the trial court on all hearing dates, unless exempted.
- No direct or indirect threat or tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- No involvement in similar offences during the bail period.
- No departure from the trial court's jurisdiction without prior permission until the case is disposed of.
Implications
The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of "" under the BNS. It suggests that where an accused takes concrete steps to fulfill the promise (such as approaching the family), the charge of rape by deceit may not stand. However, each case will turn on its facts, and the court emphasized that the present finding was limited to the , not a .
The case will now proceed for trial before the .
