ORDER : SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J. 1. This petition is filed by accused No. 1 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No. 160/2025 of Basavanagudi Police Station registered for offences under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP who is assisted by learned counsel for defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that initially FIR has been registered for offence under Sections 69, 351(2) and 352 of BNS against petitioner and his mother. Thereafter charge sheet has been filed only against this petitioner for offense under Section 69 of BNS. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the victim is aged about 44 years and petitioner is aged about 30 years. Victim lady is a divorcee. Victim lady and petitioner came in contact with each other by Bumble App which is a friendship app. They had sexual intercourse from 04.04.2024 in different places at different dates. Earlier friend of this victim lady had filed a complaint against the petitioner registered in crime No. 162/2025 of Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi wherein petitioner had been arrested and he was granted bail on 05.11.2025. Thereafter, immediately the victim lady filed a complaint on 10.11.2025 and petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2025. Marriage of the petitioner was performed on 25.05.2025, marriage was registered and certificate is produced along with a memo. He further submits that physical relationship under promise of marriage will not amount to rape in every case and on that point reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another . He further submits that merely because petitioner is having criminal antecedents is not a ground for grant of bail and on that point reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2020 (11) SCC 648 . He further submits that Police Inspector who was involved in a similar case of promising to marry and having sexual intercourse has been granted anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No. 15633/2025 by order dated 03.12.2025 . In the said case this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. He further submits that Police Inspector who was involved in a similar case of promising to marry and having sexual intercourse has been granted anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No. 15633/2025 by order dated 03.12.2025 . In the said case this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and another , 2025 INSC 458 . He further submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation. Petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. With this, he prayed to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that the statement of the victim lady has been recorded under Section 183 of BNSS wherein she has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner committing sexual intercourse with her under the promise of marriage and subsequently marrying another lady. Petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is involved in crime No. 162/2025 of Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi for committing similar offence. Considering the entire charge sheet and other materials on record offence under Section 69 of BNS is clearly attracted. If the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record. 6. As per charge sheet case of the prosecution is that the petitioner came in contact with the victim lady through Bumble app and both became friends by exchanging phone numbers. Victim lady, on 03.04.2024 came from Shiggaon to her house at Basavanagudi and accused also came with her. Accused, on 04.04.2024, has forced the victim lady to have sexual intercourse and when she refused, he told her that he will marry her and had sexual intercourse and subsequently 05.04.2024 took the victim lady to Madikeri to a residency, booked a room and under the promise of marriage he had sexual intercourse with her. When the victim lady insisted the petitioner to marry her, at that time, he told that he had his marriage engagement with another lady and that his marriage has been performed with C.W.9 on 25.05.2025. When the victim lady insisted the petitioner to marry her, at that time, he told that he had his marriage engagement with another lady and that his marriage has been performed with C.W.9 on 25.05.2025. On these grounds it is alleged that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 69 of BNS. Victim lady is aged 44 years and petitioner is aged 30 years. It is stated that the victim lady is a divorcee. Even though there is sexual intercourse on 04.04.2024 and 05.04.2024 victim lady has not filed any complaint and that itself indicates that it is a consensual intercourse. Complaint has been filed only on coming to know that the petitioner has married another lady on 24.05.2025. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nitin B. Nikhare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1889/2024 disposed on 21.01.2025) has held as under: “6. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. In order for the offence of rape to be made out, two conditions need to be satisfied i.e. that the promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that the false promise of marriage hade a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. [See: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. (2019) 9 SCC 608 ; Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2024 SCC Online SC 347] 7. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that this was a case of a consensual relationship from the beginning. Even if the case of the prosecutrix is accepted, it does not appear that the initial promise to marry was in bad faith. It was only the subsequent circumstances that prevented fulfillment of alleged false promise to marry. Resultantly, the relationship turned sour which has given rise to the present FIR. Further, in view of the material on record, we do not see this as a case where provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be attracted.” 8. It was only the subsequent circumstances that prevented fulfillment of alleged false promise to marry. Resultantly, the relationship turned sour which has given rise to the present FIR. Further, in view of the material on record, we do not see this as a case where provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be attracted.” 8. This Court in the case of Sunil H.B. Vs. The State of Karnataka , Crl.P. No. 15633/2025 disposed on 03.12.2025 has granted anticipatory bail to the accused who is alleged of offence under Section 69 of BNS and other offences and while granting bail, it is observed as under: “6. On the complaint of the victim, a case came to be registered against the petitioner and another in Crime No.597/2025 of Peenya Police Station for offences under Sections 351(2), 69, 75(2), 75(1) of BNS. The averments of the complaint indicate that the victim is aged 36 years and she came in contact with the petitioner and both continued the contact and had a physical relationship. There is no any force alleged against the petitioner of having sexual intercourse with the victim. The averments of the complaint indicate that the victim was knowing that the petitioner is married and he is having a wife. Learned counsel for petitioner contend that the petitioner is a Hindu and when he is having wife living, there is no question of he marrying the victim lady. The allegation in the averments of the complaint is that the petitioner failed to keep up his promise to marry the victim, get her a flat and a parlor. Considering the averments of the complaint indicate that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim is consensual. Whether the act of the petitioner attracts Section 69 of BNS is a matter of investigation and trial.” 9. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence under Section 69 of BNS is a matter of trial. Petitioner has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. Considering the above aspects, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions. 10. In the result, the following; ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case. Considering the above aspects, petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail with conditions. 10. In the result, the following; ORDER Petition is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in crime No. 160/2025 of Basavanagudi Police Station registered for offence under Section 69 of BNS subject to following conditions: I. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. II. Petitioner shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. III. Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted and cooperate for speedy disposal of the case.