The journey of an FIR often matters as much as its registration. On 31 October 2026, in Monu Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 446 of 2026 (neutral citation 2026:UHC:9943), Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a man first accused under provisions including Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but chargesheeted under the narrower Section 69 — sexual intercourse by deceitful means or false promise of marriage — along with Sections 351(2) and 352. With the matter pending as a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, the court found the applicant deserving of protection from arrest.
The case in outline
FIR No. 0613 of 2025, registered at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, Haridwar, alleged that the applicant maintained physical relations with the informant on a false promise of marriage. The original array of sections was broad — Sections 318(4), 351(2), 352, 64, 79 and 85 of the BNS, 2023. The investigation, however, culminated in a chargesheet limited to Sections 69, 351(2) and 352, and the case was pending as Criminal Case No. 4380 of 2026 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The applicant had enjoyed interim protection since December 2025 under an earlier writ petition, and had himself instituted a complaint case against the informant and others, in which process had been issued in June 2026.
Before the High Court, the defence described a consensual relationship between adults that began online, intertwined with monetary dealings, and an FIR lodged when demands for money were resisted. The State opposed, alleging that the applicant had prepared a forged affidavit describing himself as unmarried.
The order
Weighing the rival submissions, the FIR and the applicant's own complaint case, the court concluded that the applicant deserved anticipatory bail, directing that upon arrest he be released forthwith on a personal bond with two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The order is brief, as anticipatory bail orders at this stage often are, and decides nothing about the forgery allegation or the truth of either narrative — those remain for the trial. Its significance lies in the configuration of factors that produced protection.
Reading the decision in context
The decision sits alongside a growing body of BNS-era cases exploring Section 69 — a provision with no exact IPC predecessor, criminalising sexual intercourse procured by deceitful means or a false promise of marriage where the act is not rape. Courts have emphasised that the promise must be false at inception and causally linked to consent; relationships that sour, or founder on family opposition, are not automatically criminal. At the bail stage, the courts' task is narrower still: to decide whether arrest is necessary while those questions await trial.
Practical pointers
Track the chargesheet closely: the dropping or addition of sections after investigation is often the single most important changed circumstance for a bail application.
Anticipatory bail remains available post-chargesheet if the applicant has not been arrested; frame the apprehension around process and warrants.
Where monetary dealings underlie the dispute, document them and, where genuine, pursue independent remedies; a contemporaneous complaint carries more weight than one improvised after the FIR.
Conduct during interim protection is evidence: appear when called, join the investigation, and keep the record of compliance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What changed between the FIR and the chargesheet in this case?
The FIR of October 2025 invoked a cluster of BNS provisions including Section 64 (rape) and Section 318(4) (cheating). After investigation, the chargesheet was confined to Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 BNS — the false-promise offence, criminal intimidation and intentional insult. The narrowing of charges materially altered the complexion of the case for bail purposes.
Can anticipatory bail be granted after a chargesheet is filed?
Yes. The Supreme Court has recognised that anticipatory bail can be sought even after a chargesheet, so long as the applicant has not been arrested; apprehension of arrest can subsist when the trial court issues process. In this case the matter was already pending before the CJM when protection was granted.
What weighed in favour of the applicant?
The relationship, on the defence version, was consensual between adults and had an online origin; there were monetary dealings between the parties, with the applicant having earlier filed his own complaint case against the informant; and interim protection had operated since December 2025 under an earlier writ proceeding without misuse.
What did the State argue against bail?
The State pointed to an allegedly forged affidavit by which the applicant described himself as unmarried — conduct it characterised as deceitful. The court granted protection nonetheless, leaving such questions to be tested at trial; pre-arrest bail decides custody, not credibility.