DEHRADUN: In a significant ruling highlighting the legal distinction between consensual relationships and sexual assault, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that not every consensual relationship that ends in a broken promise of marriage can automatically be treated as sexual assault on the ground of a “false promise of marriage”.
A bench comprising Justice Alok Kumar Verma granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a case in which the complainant alleged that physical relations were established on the pretext of marriage.
The Court observed that a promise to marry amounts to an offence only when 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 plea.
Emphasising the importance of individual rights, the Court anchored its decision in the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, describing it as a precious fundamental right.
“This right should only be curtailed when the specific facts and circumstances of the case necessitate such an action,” the judgment noted, underlining the need for caution before denying pre arrest protection.
The First Information Report was registered on May 9 under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Jaspur Kotwali police station in Udham Singh Nagar district. The complainant alleged that the accused had allegedly engaged in physical relations with her after assuring marriage and later denied the commitment.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the relationship between the accused and the alleged victim was consensual. It was submitted that the complainant was a “sensible adult woman” and that the accused “never made a promise of marriage”.
The defence further contended that the accused had a clean antecedent, no criminal history, and was a permanent resident of Udham Singh Nagar, thereby ruling out any possibility of absconding.
It was also pointed out that the accused had already been granted interim bail on May 21 and had complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court.
The Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail plea. However, after hearing arguments from both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court allowed the application.
The 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.