31.08.2026 Sl. No.8 Ct. 446/tkm C. R. M. (A) 2350 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Bongaon Police Station Case No. 521 of 2026 dated 19.06.2026 under Sections 69/79/351(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. And In Re: Juthika Sikdar & Anr. … … Petitioners Mr. Anik Ghatak Ms. Afreen Begum Mr. Dip Dutta … … for the petitioners Allowed Mr. Subhajit Chatterjee Mr. Manoj Kr. Singh … … for the State Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya Mr. Nepesh Majhi Ms. Tanushree Roy … … for the de facto complainant 1. Mr. Ghatak, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the relationship was consensual and there is no material to show that petitioner no. 2 developed the relationship on a false promise of marriage, given in bad faith and with no intention of adhering to the promise at the time it was given. Referring to certain WhatsApp chats appended to the application, he submits that the said WhatsApp messages indicate that the relationship was totally consensual and subsequently, the relationship broke up. He submits that the ingredients of Section 69 cannot be stated to have been fulfilled. In a similar situation, taking note of the fact that the relationship was consensual and considering the WhatsApp messages, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court granted bail to the accused person. Referring to another decision 2 reported in (2025) 5 SCC 764 (Prashant vs. State of NCT of Delhi), he submits that, in the said decision, it was noted that, on several occasions, the appellant and the complainant met at various places. Although the complainant stated that the appellant had a forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting the appellant thereafter, nor did she file a criminal complaint during the said period. He submits that, in the present case also, it was alleged that petitioner no. 2 had a forceful sexual relationship with the victim. However, even after the incident, he met the victim again, and no complaint was lodged at that time. He submits that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and that the complainant was aware of the consequences thereof, and the ingredients of the offence of rape were not made out. He submits that, applying the proposition laid down in the decision of Prashant (supra), the benefit under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners. 2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary, memo of evidence and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 3. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the de facto complainant also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials in the Case Diary, including the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. The statement of the victim has not yet been recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. In the complaint, it was alleged 3 that petitioner no. 2 had a forceful sexual relationship with the victim. However, despite this, the victim met petitioner no. 2 on several occasions after the incident. No complaint was lodged at that point of time. The WhatsApp messages indicate that the relationship was consensual and that a love affair had developed between them. Subsequently, the relationship broke up. There is a difference between a false promise and a breach of promise. If the consent is vitiated by misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry, and if it appears that the promise was given in bad faith and with no intention of adhering to it at the time when it was given, then it can be said that the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, including the WhatsApp messages, I am of the view that the privilege under Section 482 of the BNSS can be extended in favour of the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, I direct that, in the event of arrest, the petitioners namely 1) Juthika Sikdar and 2) Tushar Kanti Sikdar shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM, Bongaon, North 24 Pgs. and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioner no. 2 shall meet the IO once in a fortnight till submission of charge sheet. 6. The application being CRM (A) 2350 of 2026 is disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)