Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case

“To Treat Every Breach of Promise as Rape Is a Folly”—  Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a detailed ruling by Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, granted bail to a young man accused under Sections 69 and 75(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case where a long-standing consensual relationship broke down after refusal to marry. The Court emphasized that criminal machinery should not be invoked merely because a romantic relationship ends in disappointment and clarified that not every failed promise to marry amounts to rape under the BNS.

The bail was granted in Criminal Petition No. 11855 of 2025, filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the Court stating that the FIR lacked material to establish that the promise to marry was false from the inception. The Court drew on a series of binding judgments of the Supreme Court, holding that a genuine relationship culminating in intimacy does not become criminal only because the marriage did not take place.

“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State,” observed the Court, quoting from the apex court’s ruling in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra.

"There Is a Difference Between a False Promise and a Broken Promise"—Court Finds FIR Lacks Allegation of Deceit from the Beginning

The case concerned a 23-year-old petitioner and a 21-year-old victim, who had been in a romantic and physical relationship for more than three years. After the petitioner refused to marry the complainant, a criminal case was registered against him under the newly enacted BNS, alleging sexual offences based on false promise to marry.

However, the High Court found that the FIR and accompanying materials did not disclose any intent to deceive from the beginning. Instead, it appeared that the couple had a voluntary relationship, which ended due to differences over marriage. The Court stressed:

“The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 appears to have been consensual. The alleged misconception of fact has spread over a period of three years.”

Justice Lakshmana Rao emphasized that for a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS to be made out, there must be a false promise made solely to induce consent for physical relations, and such promise must be intended to be broken from the outset. That element, the Court found, was absent.

Quoting from the judgment in Prithivirajan v. State, the Court reiterated:

“Only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape… The FIR suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances.”

“Consent Cannot Be Stretched Over Years and Then Labelled Misconceived”—Court Applies Test from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Maheshwar Tigga

Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court emphasized that consent given after reasoned deliberation and sustained over time cannot later be claimed to be under misconception, unless deception was proven at inception.

“The promise of marriage must have been false, given in bad faith, and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given,” the Court said, summarising the apex court's position.

Justice Rao also noted that the delay in complaint—registered only after the petitioner refused marriage despite a long-standing relationship—indicated lack of mala fides at inception, quoting the Supreme Court in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand:

“The prosecutrix had herself acknowledged obstacles to the marriage... Consent given over a prolonged period with full awareness cannot be termed as one given under misconception.”

The Court concluded that the FIR did not prima facie make out an offence under Section 69 BNS, which deals with sexual offences on the basis of false promise of marriage.

Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions to Ensure Trial Integrity and Investigative Cooperation

Observing that the petitioner was a student of B.Com, had a fixed place of residence, and had already spent 56 days in custody, the Court deemed him eligible for bail, provided certain strict conditions were followed to ensure he did not abscond, influence witnesses, or hinder the investigation.

The Court ordered that the petitioner be released on execution of a ₹10,000 bond with two sureties, and imposed the following conditions:

“The accused shall report to the Station House Officer every Saturday, not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without permission, not contact or influence any witnesses, and fully cooperate with the investigation.”

The Court made it clear that the grant of bail was not an expression of opinion on the merits, but a recognition that the criminal charge lacked foundational material to proceed.

Court Reiterates Warning Against Misuse of Rape Law in Consensual Relationships

The order echoes the broader judicial trend of cautioning against the criminalisation of failed relationships, especially when there is consent given over time in an adult relationship.

Citing Amol Bhagwan Nehul, the Court warned:

“It is a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for the offence of rape.”

This ruling serves as another significant reiteration of the principle that “rape laws must not be stretched to cover every failed relationship”, particularly where mutual consent and absence of deceit are clear from the facts.

Date of Decision: 03 December 2025