1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. V. Singh, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent as well as Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, by the accusedapplicant, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Rangiya Police Station Case No. 19/2026, registered under Sections318(2)/64/69/89/351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

3. An FIR was lodged on 22.01.2026, by one Dr. Jeshie Kalita, alleging, inter alia, that one Mr. Kaushik Das (accused-applicant) and she got involved in a love relationship since the month of March, 2020 and from the very inception of relationship, the accused-applicant has been repeatedly promising to marry her by portraying her as his future wife; that in furtherance of such promise, the accused-applicant proposed her with an engagement ring in the month of February, 2021, which was known to the friends and family members of both of them; that the accused-applicant had taken her with him to Delhi when his father was undergoing some medical treatment at Medanta Hospital, Delhi; that during that period, the Informant stayed with him and his family members to take care of his ailing father; that she had gone to Delhi again in the last week of March, 2024 for medical treatment of the father of the accused-applicant; that however, subsequently, on 10th May, 2024, the father of the accused-applicant expired in Delhi and she accompanied the accused-applicant’s mother and sister from their house in Delhi to his native place in Rangiya; that the accused-applicant repeatedly assured her that he would marry her in front of his family members thereby, gained her complete thrust and emotional dependence; that the accused-applicant has executed a written declaration on a stamp paper dated 13th September, 2020 wherein he clearly promised to marry her; that due to such promises, the Informant consented to physical relationship with him, however, shockingly, it later became apparent that the promise of marriage was false, dishonest and made solely for the purpose of sexually exploiting her vitiating her consent; that the Informant got pregnant on or around 10th July, 2024 but when she informed the accused-applicant and his family members about the pregnancy, instead of taking care of her, they subjected her to threats, pressure and emotional coercion to terminate the pregnancy against her wishes; that after abortion, the accused-applicant refused to marry her and he and his family members started avoiding her and started abusing and humiliating her verbally and blamed her solely for the pregnancy and the subsequent abortion; that due such happenings in her life, she could not take the NEET examination in the year 2025; that the intention of the accused-applicant was dishonest from the very beginning as he got into the relationship solely on false promise of marriage and only for his own sexual gratification; that in fact, she wanted to take the extreme step of committing suicide in couple of occasions, however, despite of knowledge of such attempts, the accused-applicant and his family members deliberately continued to avoid her and, in fact, abused her which has become unbearable for her. The Informant contended that due to such treatment and exploitation of her sexually on false promise of marriage by the Accused Applicant, the Informant has filed the instant FIR.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Rangiya Police Station Case No. 19/2026, under the aforementioned Sections against the accused-applicant.

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already given interim protection to the Accused Applicant pending receipt of the Case Diary, vide its order dated 30.01.2026.

6. Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that there was no false promise of marriage in the instant case whereby, any sexual exploitation on the Informant by the accused-applicant. He submits that both the accused-applicant and the Informant got into a relationship voluntarily and during such relationship, they got into physical relationship on their own without any mischief or coercion or force by the accusedapplicant. He submits that during the period of more than five years, they had their share of emotional conflicts in terms of various small fights and misunderstandings, which are obvious in a relationship between two teenagers. He submits that as their relationship was known to the friends and families of both the parties, every one expected of their marriage to be culminated. However, their relationship got into trouble waters as that happens with many couples and they subsequently, broke off. He submits that there were no false promises and the document that has been shown as an agreement to marry does not have any admissible value as the same cannot be termed as an agreement, which was executed out of emotion at one point of time by a young person to his young girl friend. He submits that emotions vary from time to time and after the death of the father of the accused-applicant, the accused-applicant got busy with his sudden responsibilities to look after his family and therefore, he could not give sufficient time to the Informant. He submits that because of his preoccupation, as he could not give sufficient time to the Informant who was staying in Jorhat, that factor adversely affected their relationship as the Informant being a very demanding person. He submits that the whole relationship, including the physical relationship is not on the basis of any false promise but, out of love and affection between two young persons, which had gone sour in passage of time. Therefore, he submits that the accusation of false promise of marriage and forceful sex by the accused-applicant on the Informant is totally false & concocted and the same cannot be relied upon without having any material and believable basis. He further submits that the accused-applicant is a young person belonging to a respectable family whose father died recently and has been shouldering his full responsibility to look after his family. He submits that after consideration of the materials brought before this Court, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide an order dated 30.01.2026, has given the interim protection to the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant, in terms of the interim order, has appeared before the I/O and got his statement recorded. He submits that the I/O has already collected statements of several other witnesses also and since the accusedapplicant has been co-operating with the investigation, there is no reason for any custodial detention of the accused-applicant at this stage. Therefore, he submits that this Court should let the accused-applicant remain in bail by making the interim order so passed earlier, absolute.

7. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission that every such consensual relationship which later on travels to a unhappy ending cannot be given a criminal cover subsequently. In this connection, he has referred to the case of Pramod Kumar Navaratna vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in 2026 OnLine SC 154, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. It was held that what was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a cover of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that in the instant case also though there were talks of marriage between the aforesaid Informant and the accusedapplicant and their families, the same seems to have not been fructified into a marriage and the failure of the relationship cannot be given the element of criminality. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that since the accusedapplicant has been cooperating with the investigation, he should be allowed to remain on bail.

8. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials of false promise of marriage and sexual exploitation of the Informant by the Accused Applicant in the Case Diary and therefore, he opposes the prayer for bail of the Accused-Applicant.

9. Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Informant, submits that there are numerous materials available which suggest that the accused-applicant got into the relationship with the Informant with the excuse of marrying her and after exploiting her sexually, he has retracted his promise and denied to marry her. She submits that after spending five years of her valuable life with the hope that she will be married by the accused-applicant and after her relationship is known to the families and friends of both the parties, the rejection of marriage by the accused-applicant is nothing but a criminal activity. She submits that at the very inception of their relationship, a document was executed by the accused-applicant that he would be marrying the Informant and after five years of the courtship, he refused to marry her, which clearly shows the criminal intention of sexually exploiting the Informant by the accused-applicant. She submits that the Informant being a young lady on the hope of getting married to the accusedapplicant, given everything to the accused-applicant including her valuable five years of life as well as she allowed her to exploit her body. Therefore, she submits that the sections against which the accused-applicant have been charged are squarely applicable to the accused-applicant. She has referred to the case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 1 to support her submission that the accusedapplicant has sexually exploited the Informant deceitfully and thereby, committed the offences under Sections 64 & 69 of the BNS, 2023 and therefore, the learned Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the accused-applicant at this stage.

10. This Court has perused the Case Diary which has been produced before this Court and has also carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

11. It is seen that the Informant and the accused-applicant, both are educated majors and got into a relationship sometime in the year 2020. The case has been projected by the Informant that the accused-applicant had, in fact, got her into the relationship on a promise of marriage. To substantiate her statement, the Informant has produced one document, wherein a declaration in a stamp paper could be seen, which reveals that the accused-applicant, on that day, promised that he would marry the Informant and he had stated so in his full senses. Subsequently, she got into physical relationship with the accused applicant on several occasions and their relationship is known to the families and friends of both. It is also seen that the Informant accompanied the accused-applicant to Delhi on various occasions including two (2) occasions wherein, the accusedapplicant’s father was being treated in a Hospital in Delhi. It is seen that during those visits, the accused-applicant and the Informant stayed together and in between them, they had physical relationship. It is also seen that the Informant got pregnant at one point of time and her pregnancy was aborted. It is seen that their relationship got into trouble waters and subsequently, they seem to have ended their relationship with each other.

12. On perusal of the materials brought before this court and on perusal of contents of several Whatsapp messages, this Court is of the prima facie view that the physical relationship between the couple was never coercive or forceful. It is seen that such intimacies between them was voluntary in nature and truly consensual. It is also seen from the materials that the Informant, in fact, accompanied the Accused-Applicant and his family to Delhi, wherein the accused-applicant's father was being treated. However, no material as such could be, prima facie, found which suggests that the Informant was taken by the accused-applicant against her will. In fact, from the materials, it is seen that at least on one occasion, the Informant herself wanted to go to Delhi with the accusedapplicant. It is seen that the accused-applicant has confessed before the police that the above referred document was signed by him out of emotion and under a different atmosphere and circumstances; he stated that he was in the mind of marrying her at that point of time. Subsequently, the situation changed due to various reasons including several misunderstandings due to the fact of inability of him to give her sufficient time. Materials also suggest that the Informant kept on pestering the accused-applicant to visit her in Jorhat, which, as per the accused-applicant, he could not do so due to his preoccupation with the responsibility of the family after his father’s demise.

13. Having observed so, it may be relevant to refer to a paragraph of the case of Pramod Kumar Navaratna (Supra) relied by the learned Senior Counsel. The relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraph-25 is extracted herein below: -

                   “25. At this juncture, it is important to place reliance upon the observations in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5 SCC 764, wherein this Court speaking through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that a mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage. Furthermore, this Court in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 through one of us (Nagarathna, J.) observed that this Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape,being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every soured relationship into an offence of rape not only trivializes the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern for the judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for condemnation.”

14. This Court has also considered the case of Anurag Soni (supra) referred to and relied on by the counsel appearing for the Informant. However, it is seen that the aforesaid case is on a different footing altogether. In the instant case, in fact, there are sufficient materials, prima facie, to show active participation of the Informant in a physical relationship during their courtship. This is also a fact that the courtship lasted for more than five years and there is no material to show that the accused-applicant only wanted to indulge in sexual intercourse with the Informant without having any intention of actually marrying the Informant. In fact, the materials available suggest that the accused-applicant wanted to marry the Informant, however, the same could not materialized due to various reasons including the growing differences between them.

15. On consideration of the materials available before this Court and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Pramod Kumar Navaratna (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the interim order so passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, should not be disturbed at this stage and therefore, the interim order so passed on 30.01.2026 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions as provided therein.

16. In view of the aforesaid, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of as allowed.