69 BNS  | Mere Failure To Marry Does Not Establish False Promise From Inception: Telangana High Court

"The mere failure of the relationship to culminate in marriage does not, by itself, establish that the promise was false from the outset; that question must be determined on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling dated 05.10.2026, held that a consensual relationship between adults that fails to result in marriage does not, ipso facto, justify the denial of anticipatory bail in cases involving allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

A bench of Justice N. Tukaramji observed that the core legal issue of whether a promise of marriage was false from its inception is a matter for investigation and cannot be summarily determined at the pre-trial stage.

The petitioner had sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered at Allapur Police Station, Cyberabad, involving accusations under Sections 69, 316(2), 318(4), and 351(2) of the BNS. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner engaged in a long-term sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage, obtained financial benefits, and was involved in the forced termination of two pregnancies. The petitioner, conversely, maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the accusations were a result of the relationship turning sour after he married another person.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations of a broken promise of marriage and subsequent sexual relationship constitute a false promise at the inception of the relationship, sufficient to warrant custodial interrogation. The court was also called upon to determine whether, in view of the evidence being largely documentary and medical, the petitioner’s custodial presence was indispensable for the investigation.

Nature of Offences Under Section 69 BNS

The court noted that the gravamen of an offence under Section 69 BNS rests on the "falsity" of the marriage promise at the time it was made. Relying on established precedents, the court emphasized that it must conduct a prima facie assessment rather than a conclusive adjudication of facts during an anticipatory bail hearing.

Court Explains Scope Of Section 482 BNSS

The High Court clarified that while the nature and gravity of the offence are paramount, the court must balance the state's interest in investigation with the liberty of the accused. The judge noted that the evidence regarding pregnancy terminations, monetary transactions, and the nature of the relationship was largely capable of independent verification through hospital and banking records.

"At the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, the Court is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence or conclusively adjudicate disputed questions of fact."

Investigation Requirements and Bail Conditions

The bench observed that the petitioner had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. Finding no compelling material to suggest that custodial interrogation was indispensable, the Court granted the petitioner relief subject to stringent conditions. The petitioner is mandated to surrender before the police and appear regularly before the Investigating Officer, ensuring that the investigative process remains unhindered.

Protection Against Witness Tampering

The Court underscored that the grant of anticipatory bail is not absolute and is contingent upon the accused’s compliance with judicial mandates. The order specifically bars the petitioner from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, while warning that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of bail.

The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond and provide sureties. The court clarified that these observations were made solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not prejudice the trial court during the final adjudication of the merits of the case.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026