“At this stage, there is no convincing material on record that the accused had given a false promise to marry the victim and later did not marry her and committed rape upon her.”
Court’s Decision
The Tripura High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 by the accused in a case registered under Sections 376, 323, 417, and 506 of IPC, granting him pre-arrest bail on conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with a surety of like amount, cooperation with the investigation, and restrictions on tampering evidence or threatening the complainant.
The Court found lack of convincing evidence to support allegations of rape on a false promise of marriage, and emphasised that the complainant, being a police constable, had sufficient knowledge of legal remedies but remained silent for years, indicating the relationship was consensual.
Facts
The complainant, a police constable, alleged that in June 2021, she met the accused via Facebook and developed a close relationship, leading to a physical relationship after the accused promised to marry her. She claimed the accused introduced himself as unmarried, later revealed to be married with a child, and extorted Rs. 20 lakhs from her. She alleged the accused continued to visit her quarters, cohabited with her, and last committed rape in April 2025 before refusing marriage, leading to her filing an FIR.
The accused applied for anticipatory bail, arguing the allegations did not disclose an offence under Section 376 IPC.
Issues
- Whether the allegations disclosed the commission of rape on a false promise of marriage under Section 376 IPC.
- Whether the delay of four years in filing the FIR indicated a consensual relationship.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted considering the facts, applicable precedents, and ongoing investigation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The FIR did not disclose an offence of rape; at most, it could attract Section 417 IPC.
- Both parties were consenting adults, and the complainant, being a police constable, was well aware of the legal consequences.
- The long delay (from 2021 to 2025) in filing the FIR indicated that the relationship was consensual, not forced.
- Cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Rajnish Singh v. State of UP, Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana, and Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of UP, highlighting that:
- False promise of marriage at inception, not mere breach, constitutes rape under Section 375.
- Courts should differentiate between a consensual relationship and rape under the misconception of a false promise.
- Asserted the complainant’s legal notice demanding divorce proof from the accused reflected consensual cohabitation.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The accused deceived the complainant by falsely promising marriage while being married and continued a physical relationship under this false promise, constituting rape under Section 375 IPC.
- Relied on Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) to argue that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage amounts to no consent under the law, bringing the case under Clause Secondly of Section 375 IPC.
- Urged the Court to reject the bail application to ensure fair investigation.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 375 IPC read with Section 90 IPC states that consent obtained under a misconception of fact is no consent.
- Courts in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Anurag Soni, and Deepak Gulati held that for sexual intercourse to amount to rape under false promise, it must be shown that the promise was false from inception and made with mala fide intention.
- Mere breach of a promise, without proof of initial false intent, does not constitute rape.
- In Naim Ahamed, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise.
The High Court found these principles applicable, noting that no evidence was presented to show the accused had a false promise at the inception.
Precedent Analysis
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019): Clarified the need to prove false promise at inception to constitute rape under false promise.
- Rajnish Singh v. State of UP (2025): Distinguished consensual live-in relationships from cases of rape under false promise.
Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana (2025): Quashed FIR where the facts showed consensual relations, not false promise. - Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of UP (2021): Emphasised that the accused’s intention at inception determines the applicability of Section 375 IPC.
- Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): Differentiated false promise from breach of promise in rape cases under false promise.
The Court held that the facts aligned with the principles in Pramod Pawar and related cases favouring bail.
Court’s Reasoning
- The complainant, a police constable, continued the relationship for nearly four years before filing the FIR, indicating it was consensual.
- The complainant sought divorce proof from the accused rather than filing an immediate complaint, suggesting awareness and consent.
- No evidence indicated a false promise at inception; rather, it was a consensual relationship that later broke down.
- The Court found no convincing material to support allegations of rape, and that Section 376 IPC was not prima facie attracted.
- The conditions imposed during anticipatory bail would protect the investigation and the complainant.
Conclusion
The Tripura High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused with conditions:
- The accused shall execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount.
- He shall cooperate with the investigation and appear when called.
- He shall not tamper with evidence or threaten the complainant.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction without permission, failing which bail may be cancelled.
The anticipatory bail application was allowed and disposed of.
Implications
- Reinforces that mere breach of promise does not amount to rape unless the promise was false from inception.
- Clarifies that consensual relationships cannot be converted into rape allegations unless statutory conditions are met.
- Protects the liberty of the accused while ensuring fair investigation with safeguards.
Brief Note on Cases Referred
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra: False promise must be at inception for rape charges.
- Rajnish Singh v. State of UP: Differentiated between live-in relationships and rape on false promise.
- Batlanki Keshav Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana: FIR quashed where no false promise at inception.
- Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of UP: Reaffirmed need to prove mala fide intent at the outset.
- Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi): Differentiated breach of promise from false promise in rape cases.
These were applied to assess the merit of granting anticipatory bail in the present case.
FAQs
1. Can consensual sex under a promise to marry amount to rape?
Only if the promise was false from inception and made with mala fide intent; otherwise, it is not rape.
2. Does a long delay in filing a complaint affect rape allegations under false promise?
Yes, unexplained delay may indicate consensual relations, affecting the prosecution’s case.
3. What conditions are imposed when anticipatory bail is granted in such cases?
Conditions include bond execution, cooperation with investigation, non-tampering of evidence, and restricted movement.
