Section 69 of the BNS: High Court Decisions, Bail Success Rate & Legal Trends
- Mansha Khemka
- Oct 25
- 6 min read
Updated: 10 hours ago
When the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) replaced the Indian Penal Code, Section 69 quickly drew attention. It redefined the earlier “rape on false promise of marriage” offence into a narrower, intent-based provision designed to punish deceit, not heartbreak.
When I first wrote about this subject, the law was failry new and largely untested and the Courts were still hearing these matters. In the months since, over 130 judgments across 17 High Courts (SCC Online) have clarified how Section 69 operates in real courtrooms. Having represented clients in anticipatory bail and quashing matters before the Bombay High Court and other criminal courts, we have seen the law evolve in real time.
What Section 69 Actually Says?
Section 69 penalises sexual intercourse “not amounting to rape” when consent was obtained by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage made without genuine intent to fulfil it.Every judgment now turns on a single question:
Was there dishonest intent at the very beginning of the relationship?
If not, if the relationship was genuine and later failed Section 69 does not apply. This “intent at inception” test now anchors nearly every judicial decision under the provision. For a more detailed overview on Section 69 of BNS, see this post.
The Numbers: What 132 Cases Reveal (2024–2025)
Across 132 reported judgments [till 24 October 2025], a consistent national pattern emerges:
Top jurisdictions: Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, and Kerala, accounting for over 80% of all rulings. Only five petitions nationwide were denied. It is to be noted, several challenges, though filed in such cases are pending adjudication.
Common Judicial Themes
1. Consensual Relationship ≠ Deceit: Courts repeatedly observed that a consensual adult relationship, even if it ends badly, does not by itself establish deception.
“A mutual relationship that ends in disappointment cannot be criminalised unless deceit is shown at the inception.” — Kerala High Court, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3069
2. Delay in FIR Indicates Retaliation: More than half the complaints were filed months after the relationship ended, often following the accused’s marriage. Courts viewed such delays as retaliatory, granting anticipatory bail.
3. Intent at Inception Is Key: Courts refuse to infer deceit unless it is shown that the accused never intended to marry from the start.
4. Adult Autonomy: Judges repeatedly affirm that adult women possess autonomy in intimate relationships. Criminal law protects against coercion, not emotional fallout.
When Courts Denied Relief?
Out of 132 rulings analyzed, only five petitions were denied, all involving aggravating facts such as concealment, deceit, or statutory limitations.
These represent under 4% of all rulings. Courts are clearly confining Section 69 to cases of proven dishonesty, not emotional or social breakdowns.
What the Courts Expect?
Across High Courts, one message is consistent: Section 69 BNS punishes deceit, not disappointment.
Courts now assess:
Whether the promise to marry was false from inception;
Whether the FIR timing suggests retaliation;
Whether objective evidence (chats, messages, photos) supports the claim;
Whether both parties were adults capable of consent; and
Whether custodial interrogation is truly necessary (in cases like this, it rarely is).
The judicial language has been clear. In Ankit Hukumchand Malviya v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 734, the Bombay High Court held that:
“Every romantic failure cannot be painted as deceit.”
Similarly, Deepak v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2689, warned:
“Criminal law cannot become a tool for retribution between consenting adults.”
And in Yashwant Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 3712:
“The prosecution must establish that the promise was false from inception; otherwise, the offence is not made out.”
Together, these judgments preserve the boundary between deceit and disappointment, ensuring criminal law remains a shield against fraud, not a weapon in personal disputes.
What Accused Persons Should Know?
Allegations under Section 69 BNS are serious, but not automatically criminal. Courts have drawn a clear, consistent line.
1. Intent matters most. Liability arises only if the promise was false from the start.
2. Seek anticipatory bail early. Courts routinely grant bail where consent was voluntary.
3. Preserve your evidence. Chats, messages, and photographs often decide outcomes.
4. Avoid direct contact after FIR. Communicate only through counsel.
5. Obtain early legal advice. Timely representation protects liberty and prepares for quashing if needed.
6. Stay calm and factual. Composure and credibility matter more than confrontation.
The strongest defence under Section 69 BNS lies in truth, evidence, and restraint.
Case Experience and Judicial Approach
Our firm has represented several individuals accused under Section 69 BNS before the Bombay High Court and Criminal Courts in bail, writs and trial proceedings. These proceedings have provided a close view of how courts interpret this provision with balance and precision. Most cases involved long-term consensual partnerships, including live-in relationships known to families.In one matter, the prosecutrix was herself married with a young child, yet an FIR was registered on the allegation of a false promise of marriage. The factual record established a voluntary relationship between adults without deception at inception.
In such proceedings, both the Sessions Courts and the High Court at Bombay granted anticipatory bail and interim protection, recognising that these prosecutions rest on documentary and digital evidence, not custodial interrogation.
The emphasis has been on protecting personal liberty while allowing lawful investigation.
Footnotes and References
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 2(35) (definition of “woman”).
Kerala High Court on consensual relationships not amounting to deceit: Prachith P. v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 3069.
Judicial denial cases with aggravating factors and summary reasonings including:
6.1. Bhupesh Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine HP 4513 (Section 69 inapplicable as complainant not legally woman).
6.2. Deepesh Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2563 (concealment of existing marriage and pregnancy showed deceit).
6.3. Anil Verma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4927 (quashing refusal due to trial issues).
6.4. Gaurav Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1199 (quashing denied, disputed facts).
6.5. Mithu Adhikary v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3103 (prima facie deceit and financial exploitation).
Author’s analysis based on an independent review of 132 reported judgments across 17 High Courts (SCC Online, 2024– 24 Oct 2025), encompassing anticipatory bail and quashing petitions under Section 69 BNS. Based on an independent review of 132 reported judgments under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, across 17 High Courts, between January 2024 and October 2025 (on file with the author). The dataset includes anticipatory bail and quashing petitions reported on SCC Online and reflects a consolidated analysis of judicial trends, relief rates, and thematic reasoning.
Disclaimer
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an advocate – client relationship. The analysis is based on reported judgments and statutory interpretation as of the date of publication.Legal outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, and jurisdiction of each case. Readers are strongly advised to seek independent professional legal counsel before acting on any information contained herein.While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the author and firm accept no responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any consequences arising from reliance on this material.