Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — sexual intercourse by deceitful means or on a false promise of marriage — has quickly become one of the most litigated of the new penal provisions. On 12 November 2026, in In Re: Md. Gulfam Hussain (C.R.M.(A) 3865 of 2026), Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court granted anticipatory bail in such a case, where the first information report itself disclosed that the complainant and the accused had been in a relationship since 2018. The order is a useful marker of how courts weigh long, consensual associations at the pre-arrest stage.
The case
The petitioner, a member of a paramilitary force, apprehended arrest in Uluberia Police Station Case No. 641 of 2026 dated 19 August 2026 (G.R. Case No. 2843 of 2026), registered under Section 69 (sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage), Section 318(4) (cheating) and Section 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He moved the Calcutta High Court for anticipatory bail — the application being treated under the provisions corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
What distinguished the matter was the complaint itself: the FIR disclosed that the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner had been running since 2018. The allegation, in substance, was of sexual exploitation on a promise of marriage; the defence pointed to the length and continuity of the association as inconsistent with deceit at the inception.
What the court held
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh granted the protection, recording that “custodial detention of the present petitioner in connection with the instant case is unwarranted”. The operative directions balanced liberty with the needs of the investigation:
Section 69 BNS at the pre-arrest stage
Section 69 criminalises a promise of marriage made without any intention of fulfilling it, employed as the means of obtaining consent. Intention at the inception is the fulcrum. At the anticipatory bail stage, courts do not conduct a trial of that intention; they ask whether the FIR’s own narrative, taken as it stands, points to deceit from the start or to a relationship that soured. The longer and more layered the association disclosed — years of cohabitation or courtship, family-level acknowledgement, continued relations after alleged refusals — the harder it is to treat the inception as fraudulent for the purpose of justifying arrest before trial.
| Factor on the face of the FIR | Bearing at the anticipatory bail stage |
|---|---|
| Relationship of long duration disclosed in the complaint itself | Weakens the inference of a false promise at inception; supports pre-arrest protection. |
| Allegation of a promise made and broken shortly before the complaint | Points towards breach rather than deceit — a civil wrong is not Section 69. |
| Specific material suggesting the accused never intended to marry (concealed marriage, parallel engagements) | Strengthens the prosecution case and the plea for custodial interrogation. |
| Accompanying charges — cheating under Section 318(4), intimidation under Section 351(3) BNS | Examined on their own ingredients; they do not automatically harden the Section 69 allegation. |
Takeaways
The complaint’s own timeline is the first battleground: a relationship the FIR traces back years is a structural fact the prosecution cannot easily argue around at the threshold.
Anticipatory bail in such cases is increasingly granted on terms — limited duration, periodic attendance before the investigating officer — rather than as open-ended immunity. The accused must use the window to seek regular bail or further protection.
Members of disciplined forces face service consequences from arrest itself, which makes the pre-arrest remedy especially consequential; courts, in turn, weigh their traceability and institutional accountability in their favour.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 69 BNS punish?
Sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling it, where the act does not amount to rape. It is a new, distinct offence under the BNS — the IPC had no exact equivalent, and such allegations were earlier prosecuted, if at all, under Section 375/376 IPC on the theory of vitiated consent.
Why did the duration of the relationship matter?
Because the FIR itself recorded that the parties had been in a relationship since 2018. Where the complainant’s own narrative shows years of continued association, the inference of inducement by deceit at the inception becomes weaker at the threshold stage, and the case for custodial interrogation correspondingly thinner. The court held custodial detention unwarranted on these facts.
Was the protection unconditional?
No. The order was directed to remain in force for six weeks, the petitioner was to meet the investigating officer weekly, and the usual conditions attached to pre-arrest bail — corresponding to Section 438(2) CrPC, now Section 482(2) BNSS — were imposed. Time-limited protection keeps the investigation moving while shielding the accused from immediate arrest.
Is this binding in Delhi?
A Calcutta High Court order is not binding on Delhi courts, but the approach — testing the FIR’s own version against the ingredients of Section 69 BNS at the anticipatory bail stage — mirrors how pre-arrest bail pleas in relationship cases are argued before the Delhi courts as well.