Back
Promise to Marry After Intercourse: Grants Bail to Mohammed Ayan
Introduction: A Promise That Came Too Late
The on , granted regular bail to Mohammed Ayan, a 26-year-old man accused of sexual intercourse by under . Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the single-judge bench, found that the complainant’s own statement indicated the alleged promise to marry was made after the physical relationship had already begun—undermining the core element of the offence.
The Case Background: From Colleagues to Complainant
The case originated from Crime No. 231/2026 registered at the , on . The complainant, a 25-year-old woman, worked alongside Mohammed Ayan at . According to the FIR, the accused—already in a relationship with another woman—approached her in and had sexual intercourse without her consent. He later promised marriage, and they continued a physical relationship on several occasions. However, when family objections over caste and religion arose, the accused allegedly refused to marry her.
Ayan was arrested on , and his bail application before the in Crl.Misc.No.7153/2026 was rejected on , prompting him to approach the High Court.
Arguments: False Allegations vs. Case
Senior Counsel , appearing for the petitioner, argued that the relationship had failed for reasons beyond Ayan’s control and that the complainant had filed a false complaint for extraneous reasons. He highlighted that Ayan had no other criminal antecedents, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. Since the maximum punishment under Section 69 BNS is ten years, he urged for bail.
In opposition, the High Court Government Pleader and counsel for the defacto complainant contended that the FIR and charge sheet material disclosed a case. They argued that Ayan had misled the victim with a false promise of marriage and had physical relations under that pretext.
Legal Analysis: The Timing of the Promise Matters
Justice Shetty closely examined the complainant’s statement recorded under . The victim stated that she knew Ayan was in another relationship and that he approached her sexually before any marriage promise was made. The Court noted:
“From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that victim girl knew that petitioner was in a relationship with another girl and subsequently, he had approached her and had sexual intercourse with her. The alleged promise to marry victim girl is after the act of sexual intercourse committed by him.”
The Court clarified the legal threshold under Section 69 BNS:
“For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023, a person should have sexual intercourse with a woman by or by making promise to marry a woman without intention of fulfilling the same, not amounting to the offence of rape.”
Since the promise followed the initial sexual act, the essential element of deceit causing the intercourse was absent. The Court also considered that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused had no criminal antecedents.
Key Observations: The Victim's Own Words
The judgment relied heavily on the victim’s own deposition before the magistrate:
“In the statement made by the victim girl under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023, she has clearly stated that prior to the petitioner making the promise to marry her, he had sexual intercourse.”
This sequence of events, the Court held, did not fit the framework of Section 69, which requires a deceitful promise made before or at the time of the sexual act.
Court's Decision: Bail Granted with Conditions
The petition was allowed. Justice Shetty ordered that Mohammed Ayan be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 231/2026, subject to the following conditions:
- Execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
- Regular appearance on all hearing dates before the trial court, unless exempted.
- No direct or indirect tampering with prosecution witnesses.
- No involvement in similar offences in the future.
- No departure from the trial court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.
The ruling reinforces that for a charge under Section 69 BNS to stand, the promise of marriage must be shown to be the for the sexual relationship—not an afterthought. This decision may serve as a benchmark for similar cases where the chronology of events is disputed.
