The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a case involving an alleged promise to marry, holding that the material placed before the Court did not indicate, at the stage of bail, that he had made the promise without intending to fulfil it.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty passed the order on August 27, 2026, after noting that the accused had allegedly approached the woman’s mother after the incident and expressed his willingness to marry her. The proposal, however, was refused by her mother.
Background Of The Case
The case was registered at Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 69, 89 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to the first information, the woman and the accused had become acquainted in 2023 and later developed a friendship. They began exchanging messages from December 2024. The accused subsequently proposed marriage, and the woman agreed after he allegedly promised to marry her.
The order records that in March 2025, the two stayed overnight at a resort. The woman alleged that sexual intercourse took place there on the assurance that he would marry her.
The Court noted that after the alleged incident, the accused went to the woman’s house and met her mother. He allegedly informed her that he was ready and willing to marry the woman. Her mother refused the proposal. The woman’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS also referred to this circumstance.
Court’s Observation On Section 69 BNS
The High Court examined the requirement under Section 69 of the BNS concerning a promise to marry. The Court noted that the provision applies where sexual intercourse is alleged to have been obtained by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling that promise.
The Court observed:
“For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same.”
Justice Shetty further noted that, in the present case, the accused had approached the woman’s mother and expressed his willingness to marry her, but the proposal was refused.
The Court therefore held:
“In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant.”
Custody And Investigation
The accused had been arrested on June 16, 2026 and remained in judicial custody. His earlier bail application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court had been rejected on July 9, 2026.
While considering the fresh bail plea, the High Court also took note of the fact that a major portion of the investigation had already been completed.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and directed that the accused be released on regular bail in the case.
The bail was made subject to conditions, including execution of a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties for the same amount, regular appearance before the Trial Court, and a direction not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence.
The Court also directed that the accused should not involve himself in similar offences and should not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without its permission until disposal of the case.
