Tripura HC Rejects Pre-Arrest Bail Where Accused Refused Marriage Citing Victim's Tribal Identity

The High Court of Tripura found prima facie material under Section 69 BNS and the SC/ST Atrocities Act after the accused declined to marry the complainant because she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community.

The High Court of Tripura, on 15 May 2026, rejected the pre-arrest bail application of Sri Banamali Sinha, who faced prosecution under Sections 69 and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with East Agartala Women PS Case No. 2026 WEA/008. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, sitting singly, found prima facie material that the petitioner had entered into a prolonged physical relationship with the complainant—a Scheduled Tribe woman—on a promise of marriage, took approximately Rs. 3,00,000 from her, pressurised her to terminate a pregnancy, and ultimately refused to marry her on the ground that she belonged to a tribal community. The court also noted that a proclamation had already been issued against the petitioner after he remained an absconder, a factor that weighed independently against the grant of pre-arrest bail.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, a resident of Bilashpur, PS-Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, filed the application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, a woman of the Scheduled Tribe community, who narrated a relationship that began on Facebook in 2018, developed into a love affair from 2019, and progressed to a live-in arrangement from 2021 in her rented house.

According to the FIR, physical relations commenced in 2020 on the petitioner's promise of marriage. During the live-in period, the petitioner took money from the complainant on several occasions, totalling around Rs. 3,00,000, which was never returned. She conceived once, but the petitioner pressurised her to terminate the pregnancy. In June 2025, the petitioner deleted their joint photographs from her mobile gallery. When the relationship broke down and she approached his parents, the petitioner's father refused to accept her, using offensive language, on the ground that she was a tribal girl. The petitioner then decided to marry another woman of his parents' choice, with the marriage scheduled for 9 March 2026, following which the complainant lodged the FIR.

The Legal Issues

Two distinct legal questions arose. The first was whether the facts disclosed a prima facie case under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, which penalises sexual intercourse obtained by a deceitful promise of marriage. The second, raised by the prosecution, was whether Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was attracted. That provision makes it an offence, punishable with imprisonment for life, if a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe commits an offence under the BNS punishable with ten years or more against a person knowing that the person belongs to such a community.

A third, procedural question was whether the petitioner's status as a proclaimed absconder barred him from seeking pre-arrest bail at all.

Arguments for the Petitioner

Mr. Pranabashis Majumder, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the relationship was entirely consensual between two adults and that there was no prima facie material showing the petitioner had deceitfully cohabited with the complainant. He pointed out that the petitioner was employed as an outsourcing staff member at a Cancer Hospital in Agartala and was a resident of Kailashahar, making him unlikely to abscond. He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Counsel relied on eight decisions in support. From the Supreme Court, he cited Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) 10044 of 2024, decided 26.05.2025), where the court observed that a consensual relationship turning sour cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State. He also relied on Rajnish Singh alias Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 197, where the Supreme Court found the complainant's allegations full of material contradictions and noted that she had remained silent about alleged abuse for sixteen years until the accused married another woman. Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 756, was cited for the proposition that a physical relationship consensual from the outset, with no dishonest inducement, does not attract the rape provisions. Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, was cited for the observation that where no promise of marriage was extended at the outset of a relationship, the prosecution case cannot be sustained.

From High Courts, counsel relied on a Jharkhand High Court order in Khamendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (MCRCA No. 1371 of 2024), a Kerala High Court order in Prachith P. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3069, and a Chhattisgarh High Court order in Prem Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 10471, all of which granted bail in consensual-relationship cases. He also cited a coordinate bench decision of the Tripura High Court itself in Debajyoti Basu v. State of Tripura, AB No. 23 of 2024, decided on 23 April 2026, where pre-arrest bail was granted after the court found no statement by the victim that the accused had used deceitful means or made a false promise of marriage. Counsel specifically argued that in the present case there was a delay of nine months in lodging the FIR without proper explanation.

The Prosecution's Opposition

Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor, opposed the application on three grounds. First, he submitted that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were squarely attracted: the petitioner, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, had committed an offence under the BNS punishable with ten years or more against the complainant, knowing she was a tribal woman. Section 69 of the BNS prescribes a punishment of ten years, satisfying the threshold.

Second, the prosecution emphasised the specific facts: the promise of marriage was made from the very inception of the relationship; the petitioner lived with the complainant for a considerable period; he took money from her; he compelled her to terminate her pregnancy by consuming pills; and he ultimately refused to marry her explicitly because she was a tribal woman. The investigating officer had seized the petitioner's Aadhaar Card, mark-sheet, and PRTC certificate from the victim's rented house, along with a contraceptive pill box, corroborating the live-in arrangement.

Third, the prosecution submitted that the petitioner had been absconding for a long period and that a proclamation had been issued against him by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Agartala, by order dated 18 April 2026. The PP relied on Srikanta Upadhya & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2024) 12 SCC 382, where the Supreme Court observed that a person continuously defying orders and remaining an absconder is not entitled to pre-arrest bail, though the court retained the power to grant it in extreme and exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

The prosecution also submitted that by virtue of Section 18 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the petition for pre-arrest bail was not maintainable at all, given the prima facie applicability of that Act.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Datta Purkayastha examined the materials placed on record and found them materially different from the cases cited by the petitioner. The court identified several prima facie indicators. The complainant, a Scheduled Tribe woman, had stated from the outset that the physical relationship was premised on the petitioner's promise of marriage. The relationship was not brief: it spanned years, with a live-in arrangement in the complainant's rented house. The pregnancy testing kit was seized by the investigating officer. The landlady of the rented house was examined. The petitioner's own documents were recovered from the victim's premises.

Critically, the court found prima facie material that the petitioner declined to marry the complainant specifically because she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community, even though he had full knowledge of her tribal identity before entering into the physical relationship. This factual matrix, the court held, was not comparable to the cases where courts found relationships to be purely consensual with no false promise at inception.

On the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the court noted the provision in Section 3(2)(v) and observed that even if the police had not registered the case under that special Act at that stage, the materials independently justified rejection of pre-arrest bail. The court did not rest its decision solely on the bar under Section 18 of the Act, but treated the substantive prima facie case under Section 69 BNS as sufficient ground for refusal.

The court distinguished each of the eight decisions cited by the petitioner on the basis that those decisions were rendered on the specific materials available in those respective cases, and the materials in the present case were not similar. The court did not find the nine-month delay in lodging the FIR to be a decisive factor in the petitioner's favour, given the overall factual picture.

Outcome

The bail application in AB 27 of 2026 was rejected. The court directed that the case diary be returned to the Public Prosecutor along with a copy of the order.