Karnataka High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused Under Section 69 BNS for Deceitful Sexual Intercourse

The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to Mohammed Ayan, 26, who stands accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a provision that criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means or a false promise of marriage. Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty delivered the order after examining the investigation status, the strength of the prosecution case, and the personal circumstances of the accused.

Ayan was arrested on July 15, 2026, following a complaint filed with Indiranagar Police Station in Bengaluru. Crime No. 231/2026 was registered on July 14, 2026. The complainant, a 25-year-old woman, alleged that Ayan obtained sexual intercourse from her through false representations regarding marriage. By the time the bail petition reached the High Court, the investigating agency had completed its work and filed a charge sheet.

The Sessions Court rejected Ayan's bail application on August 19, 2026, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7153/2026. He then approached the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail. Justice Shetty granted the petition after considering multiple factors that weighed in the accused's favour.

Investigation Complete and Charge Sheet Filed

The investigation stood concluded when the bail petition was heard. Police had completed their inquiries, gathered evidence, and submitted a charge sheet to the competent court. This circumstance matters in bail jurisprudence because it demonstrates that the investigative machinery has finished its work and the case has moved into the judicial phase. When investigation is complete, the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses diminishes substantially.

The court noted that the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 69 BNS is ten years imprisonment. Although this is a serious offence, it is not among the most severe crimes under Indian criminal law, and this consideration fed into the bail analysis.

Justice Shetty examined the personal antecedents of the accused with particular care. Ayan has no prior criminal record. He presents as a first-time accused with no history of violence, dishonesty, or breach of bail conditions. Courts typically view first-time offenders more favorably than repeat offenders when assessing the risk of flight or further criminal conduct.

The Complainant's Statement and Timing of Promise

A critical observation made by the court concerned the sequence of events as described in the complainant's own statement. According to her account, the alleged promise of marriage occurred after the first act of intercourse, not before it. This timing is legally significant under Section 69 BNS, which requires that the sexual intercourse be obtained through deceit or a false promise of marriage. If the promise came after the act, the legal foundation for the charge becomes attenuated. The promise could not have induced the intercourse if it had not yet been made.

This observation does not constitute a finding on the merits of the case, which remains to be tried. However, it indicates that the court found sufficient doubt or ambiguity in the complainant's own narrative to support the grant of bail at this stage. The court's role in bail hearings is not to conduct a full trial or to make final determinations of guilt or innocence, but to assess whether detention is necessary and whether the accused poses a flight risk or danger to society.

Section 69 BNS and Its Scope

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, represents a criminal provision distinct from rape. While rape involves non-consensual sexual intercourse or intercourse obtained through force, intimidation, or incapacity, Section 69 addresses consensual intercourse obtained through fraud or false representation. The distinction matters significantly in criminal law. The consent is present, but it is vitiated by deception.

The Karnataka High Court has separately ruled that Section 69 BNS, as currently worded, cannot be invoked against a woman. That ruling clarified that the provision, by its language and structure, applies only to male accused. Consequently, if a woman were to engage in sexual intercourse through false promises or deceit, she could not be prosecuted under Section 69. This interpretation reflects the gendered language of the statute.

Bail Conditions and Next Steps

Regular bail carries conditions that the accused must satisfy. These typically include furnishing security, appearing before the court on scheduled dates, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission. Breach of bail conditions can result in cancellation and remand to custody.

With the charge sheet filed, the matter will proceed to the trial court, where the prosecution will present its evidence and the defence will have the opportunity to contest the allegations. The trial will determine whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ayan obtained sexual intercourse from the complainant through a false promise of marriage, and if so, whether the promise was made before or after the act, as the court's observation suggests may be disputed.