[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Abhishek Rathod vs The State By Basavanagudi on 7 January, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                  -1-
                                                                NC: 2026:KHC:922
                                                         CRL.P No. 16180 of 2025


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                       CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16180 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) /
                                             483(BNSS))
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    ABHISHEK RATHOD
                            S/O LATE ASHOK RAMAPPA RATHOD
                            AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
                            R/AT No.3193, SHIVATHAYI NILAYA
                            RAMATHEERTHA NAGAR
                            BELAGAVI-590 015.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI K. RAMA SINGH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    THE STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI
                            POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

Digitally signed by         REPRESENTED BY SPP
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI             HIGH COURT BUILDING
Location: HIGH              BANGALORE-01.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                                         ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI M R PATIL, HCGP FOR
                       SRI INDRA DHANUSH, ADVOCATE
                      FOR DEFACTOR COMPLAINANT)

                           THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED
                      UNDER SECTION 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
                      PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME No.160/2025 FOR
                      THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 69, 351(2)
                              -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:922
                                   CRL.P No. 16180 of 2025


HC-KAR




AND 352 OF BNS 2023 REGISTERED BY BASAVANAGUDI
POLICE STATION.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                       ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under

Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.

160/2025 of Basavanagudi Police Station registered for

offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and

learned HCGP who is assisted by learned counsel for

defacto complainant.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend

that initially FIR has been registered for offence under

Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS against petitioner and

his mother. Thereafter charge sheet has been filed only

against this petitioner for offense under Section 69 of BNS.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the

victim is aged about 44 years and petitioner is aged about

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

30 years. Victim lady is a divorcee. Victim lady and

petitioner came in contact with each other by Bumble App

which is a friendship app. They had sexual intercourse

from 04.04.2024 in different places at different dates.

Earlier friend of this victim lady had filed a complaint

against the petitioner registered in crime No. 162/2025 of

Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi wherein petitioner

had been arrested and he was granted bail on 05.11.2025.

Thereafter, immediately the victim lady filed a complaint

on 10.11.2025 and petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2025.

Marriage of the petitioner was performed on 25.05.2025,

marriage was registered and certificate is produced along

with a memo. He further submits that physical relationship

under promise of marriage will not amount to rape in

every case and on that point reliance has been placed on

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitin

B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and

another. He further submits that merely because

petitioner is having criminal antecedents is not a ground

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

for grant of bail and on that point reliance has been placed

on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 648. He further

submits that Police Inspector who was involved in a similar

case of promising to marry and having sexual intercourse

has been granted anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No.

15633/2025 by order dated 03.12.2025. In the said

case this Court placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee

Vs. State of West Bengal and another, 2025 INSC

458. He further submits that investigation is completed

and charge sheet has been filed and petitioner is not

required for further custodial interrogation. Petitioner is

ready to appear before the trial Court on all dates of

hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.

With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that

the statement of the victim lady has been recorded under

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

Section 183 of BNSS wherein she has specifically stated

the acts of this petitioner committing sexual intercourse

with her under the promise of marriage and subsequently

marrying another lady. Petitioner is having criminal

antecedents and he is involved in crime No. 162/2025 of

Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi for committing similar

offence. Considering the entire charge sheet and other

materials on record offence under Section 69 of BNS is

clearly attracted. If the petitioner is granted bail there is

threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,

this Court has perused the charge sheet and other

materials placed on record.

6. As per charge sheet case of the prosecution is

that the petitioner came in contact with the victim lady

through Bumble app and both became friends by

exchanging phone numbers. Victim lady, on 03.04.2024

came from Shiggaon to her house at Basavanagudi and

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

accused also came with her. Accused, on 04.04.2024, has

forced the victim lady to have sexual intercourse and when

she refused, he told her that he will marry her and had

sexual intercourse and subsequently 05.04.2024 took the

victim lady to Madikeri to a residency, booked a room and

under the promise of marriage he had sexual intercourse

with her. When the victim lady insisted the petitioner to

marry her, at that time, he told that he had his marriage

engagement with another lady and that his marriage has

been performed with C.W.9 on 25.05.2025. On these

grounds it is alleged that the petitioner has committed

offence under Section 69 of BNS. Victim lady is aged 44

years and petitioner is aged 30 years. It is stated that the

victim lady is a divorcee. Even though there is sexual

intercourse on 04.04.2024 and 05.04.2024 victim lady has

not filed any complaint and that itself indicates that it is a

consensual intercourse. Complaint has been filed only on

coming to know that the petitioner has married another

lady on 24.05.2025.

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitin B.

Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another

(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1889/2024 disposed on

21.01.2025) has held as under:

"6. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. In order for the offence of rape to be made out, two conditions need to be satisfied i.e. that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that the false promise of marriage hade a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. [See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. (2019) 9 SCC 608; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2024 SCC Online SC 347]

7. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that this was a case of a consensual relationship from the beginning. Even if the case of the prosecutrix is accepted, it does not appear that the

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

initial promise to marry was in bad faith. It was only the subsequent circumstances that prevented fulfillment of alleged false promise to marry. Resultantly, the relationship turned sour which has given rise to the present FIR. Further, in view of the material on record, we do not see this as a case where provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be attracted."

8. This Court in the case of Sunil H.B. Vs. The

State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 15633/2025 disposed

on 03.12.2025 has granted anticipatory bail to the

accused who is alleged of offence under Section 69 of BNS

and other offences and while granting bail, it is observed

as under:

"6. On the complaint of the victim, a case came to be registered against the petitioner and another in Crime No.597/2025 of Peenya Police Station for offences under Sections 351(2), 69, 75(2), 75(1) of BNS. The averments of the complaint indicate that the victim is aged 36 years and she came in contact with the petitioner and both continued the contact and had a physical relationship. There is no any force alleged against

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

the petitioner of having sexual intercourse with the victim. The averments of the complaint indicate that the victim was knowing that the petitioner is married and he is having a wife. Learned counsel for petitioner contend that the petitioner is a Hindu and when he is having wife living, there is no question of he marrying the victim lady. The allegation in the averments of the complaint is that the petitioner failed to keep up his promise to marry the victim, get her a flat and a parlor. Considering the averments of the complaint indicate that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim is consensual. Whether the act of the petitioner attracts Section 69 of BNS is a matter of investigation and trial."

9. Investigation is completed and charge sheet

has been filed. Whether the petitioner has committed the

alleged offence under Section 69 of BNS is a matter of

trial. Petitioner has undertaken to appear before the trial

Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy

disposal of the case. Considering the above aspects,

petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with

conditions.

10. In the result, the following;

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:922

HC-KAR

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in crime

No. 160/2025 of Basavanagudi Police Station registered

for offence under Section 69 of BNS subject to following

conditions:

I. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.