The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman on the alleged false promise of marriage. The court held that the allegations disclose a serious offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and said custodial interrogation may be necessary.
The order was passed by Justice S. Srimathy on November 11, 2025, while dismissing a petition filed by Prabhakaran, who had approached the court fearing arrest in a case registered by the All Women Police Station, Manaparai, in Tiruchy district .
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a diploma-qualified nurse, had known the petitioner since school days. Their friendship gradually turned into a romantic relationship. She alleged that while she was working at a medical centre in Coimbatore, the petitioner frequently met her and had sexual relations with her, assuring her that he would marry her.
The complaint states that when the petitioner’s family opposed the relationship, the couple left their respective homes in August 2024 and went to Tiruchy with the intention of getting married. They stayed together in a rented house for a short period. However, the relationship soon broke down, and the woman later alleged that the promise of marriage was never genuine.
An FIR was registered for cheating, criminal intimidation, and related offences. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail .
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that the relationship was consensual. He argued that he later decided not to continue the relationship after discovering what he described as issues relating to the complainant’s character. He also told the court that he was unemployed, preparing for a railway recruitment examination, and not in a position to marry.
On the other hand, the State strongly opposed the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the case involved a clear allegation of sexual intercourse induced by a promise to marry, which now attracts a specific offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The court was informed that earlier attempts at mediation had failed. Though the petitioner had once indicated readiness to marry, he later refused to file an affidavit committing to marriage, weakening his stand before the court .
Court’s Observations
Justice Srimathy examined the scope of Section 69 of the BNS, a new provision dealing with sexual intercourse by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage. The judge noted that unlike the earlier legal framework, such conduct is now treated as a distinct offence, even when it does not amount to rape.
“The provision is attracted if, by making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it, sexual intercourse is obtained,” the court observed, explaining the ingredients of the offence in simple terms .
The judge also made wider observations on live-in relationships, noting that adult women often remain legally vulnerable when relationships collapse. The court recorded that in this case, the accused was unwilling to marry after having a physical relationship on the assurance of marriage, leaving the complainant without social or legal protection.
Direction to Police
The court pointed out that although the FIR initially included offences of cheating and intimidation, Section 69 of the BNS had not been invoked. Observing that the facts prima facie attracted this provision, the judge directed the police to add the section during the investigation .
Final Decision
After considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the court concluded that this was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
“There are prima facie materials, and interrogation is necessary at this stage,” the bench said while dismissing the petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, clearing the way for further investigation against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita .
Case Title: Prabhakaran v. State
Case Number: CRL.OP(MD). No. 6147 of 2025
