A promise to marry after sex does not attract Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Karnataka High Court has held while granting regular bail to a man accused under the provision.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to a man booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, observing that on the complainant’s own statement the alleged promise of marriage came after the act of sexual intercourse, and not before it [Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka].
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 231/2026 registered by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case, and the petitioner is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The case
The FIR was registered on a complaint by a woman who alleged that the petitioner had obtained sexual intercourse from her by a promise of marriage and later stopped communicating with her. The petitioner was arrested on 15 July 2026 and remanded to judicial custody. The Sessions Court rejected his bail application on 19 August 2026, following which he approached the High Court.
Contentions
Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastian, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the relationship broke down for reasons beyond the petitioner’s control and that the complainant later made false allegations. He added that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, that the investigation is complete and that the maximum punishment for the offence is ten years.
The High Court Government Pleader, Channappa Erappa, and counsel for the complainant, Abdul Majid, opposed the plea, contending that the FIR and charge sheet material disclose a prima facie case and that consent was obtained on a false promise of marriage.
What the Court said
Examining the ingredients of the offence, Justice Shetty noted that Section 69 BNS is attracted where a person has sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means, including by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it. The Court then turned to the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS and held:
“The alleged promise to marry victim girl is after the act of sexual intercourse committed by him.”
The Court recorded that the complainant herself had clearly stated that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her before he made the promise to marry her. It also noted that, according to her statement, intercourse occurred again on later dates, that the investigation was complete, that the charge sheet had been filed and that the petitioner had no prior antecedents.
The directions
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the petitioner’s release on bail on the following conditions: a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court; regular appearance at all hearings unless exempted by the trial court; no direct or indirect threats to, or tampering with, prosecution witnesses; no commission of similar offences in future; and no leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without its permission until the case is disposed of.
Why the order matters
The order shows that, at the bail stage, the High Court looks at the sequence of events in the complainant’s own statement when testing whether Section 69 BNS is made out. A promise of marriage can matter to the offence only if it induced the sexual act, so a promise that is alleged to have followed the act does not, on that account, fit the deceitful means contemplated by the provision.
The observations are confined to the prayer for bail. The charge sheet has been filed, the allegations remain untested and will be examined at trial, and nothing in the order is an expression of opinion on the merits.
Case Title: Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Petition No. 13027 of 2026]
Bench: Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastian with Advocate Alwyn Sebastian for the petitioner; High Court Government Pleader Channappa Erappa for the State; Advocate Abdul Majid for the complainant