Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, Karnataka High Court
Section 69 BNS| Lack Of Intention To Marry Cannot Be Inferred Where Accused Approached Woman’s Mother With Proposal: Karnataka High Court
|The Court noted that the petitioner had remained in custody and that a major portion of the investigation had been completed before granting him regular bail.
The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, finding that he could not presently be said to have lacked the intention to marry the first informant since he had approached her mother with a marriage proposal, which the mother refused.
The Court was hearing a criminal petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail after the jurisdictional Sessions Court had rejected the petitioner’s application in a case involving offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 69, 89 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
A Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed: “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. For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same. In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant.”
Advocate G. Rakesh Raj appeared for the petitioner; Additional State Public Prosecutor Rashmi Jadhav appeared for the State, while Advocate Kiran M.M. appeared for the de facto complainant.
Background
According to the first information, the petitioner and the first informant became acquainted in 2023 and subsequently developed a friendship. They began exchanging messages, and the petitioner allegedly proposed marriage, which she accepted.
The first informant alleged that the petitioner took her to a resort and had sexual intercourse with her after promising marriage. The order records that the petitioner subsequently went to her home, met her mother and expressed his readiness to marry her. Her mother, however, refused the proposal.
A criminal case was thereafter registered against the petitioner and others under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 69. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After the Sessions Court rejected his request for regular bail, he approached the High Court.
The State and the de facto complainant opposed the petition, with the latter also filing written objections.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined the first information, which alleged that the relationship developed after the petitioner promised to marry the first informant.
The Court recorded: “Petitioner thereafter had proposed to the victim lady and she had agreed for the same after he had promised to marry her. In month of March, 2025, petitioner had taken her to Adventure Camp Resort and they had stayed in a room at the resort over night. Petitioner allegedly had sexual intercourse with the victim lady when they stayed there in the resort and had promised to marry her.”
The Court found it relevant that the petitioner subsequently approached the first informant’s mother and expressed his willingness to marry her. This circumstance was also recorded in the first informant’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court observed: “Subsequent to the said act, undisputedly, petitioner had gone to the house of the first informant and had met her mother and had informed her that he was ready and willing to marry the first informant. However, her mother had refused for the said proposal.”
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires sexual intercourse to have been induced through deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. Considering the petitioner’s subsequent approach to the first informant’s mother, the Court found that an absence of intention to marry could not be attributed to him at that stage.
Apart from its assessment of the petitioner’s intention, the Court considered the period spent by him in custody and the progress made in the investigation.
The Court remarked: “He is now in custody from 16.06.2026 onwards. Major portion of the investigation is already completed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.”
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner’s release on regular bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties for the same amount.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the Trial Court on every hearing date unless exempted for valid reasons. He was prohibited from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses, committing similar offences or leaving the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.
Cause Title: X v. State of Karnataka and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:46791)