1 14 ABA 806.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 806/2026 (Prajwal S/o Rajkumar Mate Vs State of Maharashtra & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Akshay Naik, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K. S. Motwani, Advocate for applicant. Ms. S.N. Thakur, APP for non-applicant/State. Mr. D. M. Khandait, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J . DATED : 14/10/2026. Heard. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.534/2026 registered with Police Station Sitabardi, Dist. Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”). 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that applicant and victim got acquainted with each other through Instagram. After some time, the applicant promised the victim to marry her. On 08/09/2025, the applicant met the victim and under the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse against her wish. Thereafter, the said act was repeated for 20 to 25 times. 2 14 ABA 806.26 After some days, the applicant started avoiding the victim and the topic of marriage. Due to fear of defamation in the society, the victim consumed poison on 20/08/2026 and was subsequently admitted to the hospital, where she disclosed about the happenings to her family members. Based on these allegations, the crime was registered. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual. Though it is alleged that under false promise of marriage, the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with the victim, however, the applicant intended to marry the victim. But due to certain reasons, he was not able to perform the marriage. It is a settled position of law that if there was a genuine promise of marriage which was not fulfilled at a later point of time, then Section 69 of the BNS would not attract. He invited my attention to various chats to show the intention of the applicant which was to marry the victim However, since the applicant's sister is elder to him and she is suppose to marry before him, therefore at the relevant time, he was not able to marry the victim. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 69 of the 3 14 ABA 806.26 BNS is made out. He has relied on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani Vs. State of Gujarat and anr., 2026 SCC Online SC 1818, wherein it is held that a promise to marry attracts Section 69 of the BNS only where it is made without any intention of fulfilling it and is accompanied by the requisite deceitful conduct. Mere subsequent failure to fulfill promise of marriage without initial deceitful intent does not constitute offence under Section 69 of the BNS. Considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it was submitted that it is squarely applicable to the present case. Further, pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court, the applicant has regularly attended the police station and cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, a prayer is made to confirm the interim protection granted by this Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 vehemently oppose the application and submits that since inception, the applicant did not have any intention to marry the victim. He exploited her trust by making a false promise of marriage for his personal benefit They further submit that 4 14 ABA 806.26 the chats which are placed on record do not show that the applicant was having intention to marry the victim. Had it been a case that the applicant would have the intention to marry, he would have disclosed to his family members that he intends to marry the victim. However, not a single circumstance discloses that the applicant at any point of time, had shown his intention to marry the victim, therefore it cannot be said that since inception he had an intention to marry her. They further by producing case diary have submitted that even prior to the registration of the present offence, the applicant under similar circumstances has taken one girl to the hotel. They relied on the guest register entry of that hotel to submit that the applicant is habitual in taking advantage of the girls under false promise of marriage. The present victim is the second victim of the applicant. Though the applicant has attended the police station, however, he has not cooperated in the investigation, therefore it was submitted that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides and after perusal of the first information report, it could be gathered that the applicant and the victim got 5 14 ABA 806.26 acquainted on Instagram. Thereafter, they started talking on the phone. It is alleged that the applicant promised to marry the victim and even the victim had shown her readiness for marriage. Accordingly, she also informed to her parents as well as to other relatives. It further appears that, when the applicant met the victim on 08/09/2025, under the pretext of marriage, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her. Time to time, the applicant has committed sexual intercourse for about 20 to 25 times by promising marriage. Thereafter, the applicant started avoiding her and giving evasive answers to her questions about marriage. Latter, the victim realized that the applicant is not going to marry her. Therefore, on 20/08/2026, she consumed poison i.e. all-out liquid. She survived after receiving treatment in the hospital. 7. Perusal of the chats placed by the victim on record demonstrates that there is nothing in those chats to show that, at any point of time, the applicant was intending to marry the victim. Though the victim was insisting to marry, however the applicant was avoiding it by saying that unless and until her elder sister's marriage does not take place, he cannot marry. As submitted by the learned 6 14 ABA 806.26 APP that even prior to this incident, the applicant had taken another girl to the same hotel, where the present victim was taken and the entry to that effect was also found in the guest register of that hotel. It appears that the said girl has not made any complaint to that effect. However, it could be gathered that the applicant was having relations with more than one girl at the relevant time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was having intention to marry the victim. From the material on record, it appears that the applicant has sexually exploited the victim for his own personal benefit. 8. It is to be noted that the legislature has carved a separate category to curb such activities of the accused persons by inserting Section 69 of the BNS. An offence is made out under section 69 of the BNS only on the fulfillment of ingredients that there should be deceitful intention as a false promise of marriage and commission of sexual interecourse. In my opinion upon giving true meaning to the intention of the legislature, in the present case, the ingredients are satisfied. The applicant has not only deceived the victim but also the said deception was caused by giving false promise to marry, thereby 7 14 ABA 806.26 committing sexual intercourse with the victim under the said deception. So far as the reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunal (supra) is concerned, the facts in the present case are altogether different, it appears that the applicant since inception, did not have any intention to marry the victim and therefore the said order would not be applicable in the given set of facts. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore the application is rejected. 9. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/10/2026 10:32:19