DEHRADUN: In granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a case alleging sexual relations on the pretext of marriage, the Uttarakhand High Court drew a careful line between criminal liability and contested personal relationships, grounding its decision in statutory safeguards and constitutional protections.
A Case Before the Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a case arising from allegations that a woman was induced into a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage, an assurance she later said was withdrawn. The ruling came in an application seeking pre-arrest protection in connection with a First Information Report registered earlier this year in Udham Singh Nagar district.
A single-judge bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma heard the matter after the accused approached the Court apprehending arrest. The FIR was lodged on May 9 at Jaspur Kotwali police station under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). According to the complainant, the accused allegedly established physical relations with her after promising marriage and subsequently denied the commitment.
The case placed before the Court raised questions about the nature of consent, the intent behind an alleged promise of marriage, and the circumstances in which criminal law should intervene at the pre-trial stage.
Arguments on Liberty and Conduct
Counsel for the accused argued that the applicant had a clean antecedent, no criminal history, and was a permanent resident of Udham Singh Nagar, factors that, according to the defence, eliminated any possibility of the accused absconding. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that interim bail had already been granted on May 21 and that the accused had complied with all conditions imposed during that period.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel further submitted that the relationship between the accused and the complainant was consensual. The complainant, the defence argued, was a “sensible adult woman,” and the accused had never made a promise of marriage. These submissions were placed before the Court as part of the plea seeking continuation of protection from arrest.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application, urging the Court not to extend pre-arrest relief. The prosecution maintained that the allegations warranted custodial investigation. The Court, however, proceeded to examine the material on record and the conduct of the accused during the period of interim protection.
The Court’s Observations on Promise and Intent
In its order, the High Court observed that not every consensual relationship that ends without marriage can automatically be treated as sexual assault on the ground of a “false promise of marriage.” The Court noted that a promise to marry would amount to an offence only if it was established that the accused had no intention to marry the complainant from the very inception of the relationship.
“The determination of this crucial fact, whether the promise was made with malafide intent or not, can only be conclusively decided during the trial proceedings,” the single bench observed while considering the anticipatory bail plea.
At the pre-arrest stage, the Court indicated, such questions could not be conclusively resolved. The judgment also underscored the need for caution before denying pre-arrest protection, stating that such a right should be curtailed only when the specific facts and circumstances of a case necessitate such action.
Bail Conditions and Constitutional Context
Allowing the application, the High Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 along with two sureties to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The Court took note of the accused’s compliance with earlier interim bail conditions while arriving at its decision.
Emphasising the importance of individual rights, the Court anchored its order in the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, describing it as a precious fundamental right. After hearing arguments from both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea, leaving the substantive issues raised by the allegations to be examined during the course of trial.
