Karnataka HC Grants Bail in Section 69 BNS Case, Finds No Proof Accused Lacked Intention to Marry

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held that an accused who actually approached the victim’s mother to formalise marriage could not be said to have made a false promise under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru granted regular bail on 27 August 2026 to the petitioner, Chethan Kumar S, who had been in custody since 16 June 2026 in connection with Crime No. 189/2026 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The offences alleged against him include those punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 69, 89 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, sitting singly, reasoned that the material on record — including the first informant’s own statement — showed the petitioner had actually gone to her mother’s home to seek her hand in marriage, which made it impossible to conclude that his original promise to marry was made without any intention of fulfilling it.

The Complaint and Arrest

The first information in this case was submitted on 30 May 2026 by the alleged victim, a 35-year-old woman. According to her typed first information, she got acquainted with the petitioner in 2023. From December 2024, the two began exchanging messages over mobile phone. The petitioner then proposed marriage to her, and she accepted after he promised to marry her.

In March 2025, the petitioner took the first informant to an Adventure Camp Resort in Bengaluru, where they stayed overnight. He allegedly had sexual intercourse with her there, again promising to marry her. Following that, the petitioner went to the first informant’s house and met her mother, informing her that he was willing and ready to marry the first informant. The mother refused the proposal.

During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 16 June 2026 and remanded to judicial custody. He moved a bail application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6089/2026, which was rejected on 9 July 2026. He then filed Criminal Petition No. 11340 of 2026 before the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.

Section 69 of the BNS: What the Provision Requires

Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 penalises sexual intercourse with a woman obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it. The provision is targeted at situations where a man induces a woman to consent to sexual intercourse by making a marriage promise he never intended to keep.

The court noted that this element — the absence of intention to marry at the time the promise was made — is what distinguishes a criminal act under Section 69 from a situation where a genuine proposal simply does not materialise. The distinction matters because the offence turns on the accused’s mental state, not merely on the fact that the marriage did not take place.

How the Court Reasoned Through the Facts

Justice Vishwajith Shetty examined the typed first information filed by the alleged victim on 30 May 2026 and her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. The court observed that in her own statement, the first informant specifically averred that after the alleged act in March 2025 at the resort, the petitioner had approached her mother and informed her that he was ready and willing to marry the first informant. The mother, however, refused the proposal.

The court held that this conduct was inconsistent with a man who had no intention to marry when he made the promise. The petitioner’s willingness to go to the victim’s family and seek formal approval for the marriage was treated as material evidence pointing against the ingredient of deceitful intent required for Section 69 to be made out.

The court further noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 16 June 2026 and that the major portion of the investigation had already been completed. Both factors weighed in favour of bail being granted.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 189/2026, subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
• He shall appear regularly on all dates of hearing before the Trial Court, unless his appearance is exempted for valid reasons.
• He shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
• He shall not involve himself in similar offences in future.
• He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the court’s permission until the case is disposed of.

Order

Criminal Petition No. 11340 of 2026 was allowed by Justice S Vishwajith Shetty on 27 August 2026. Chethan Kumar S, Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 189/2026 registered by Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, was directed to be enlarged on regular bail subject to the conditions set out above. The matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.