X v. State of Karnataka, 2026
Promise to Marry: Intention Must Be Examined Under Section 69 BNS
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Karnataka
Date of Decision
18 September 2026
Judges
Hon’ble Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged on 30 May 2026 by a woman aged about 35 years.
-
The woman had become acquainted with the petitioner in 2023.
-
They subsequently developed a friendship and began exchanging messages from around December 2024.
-
The petitioner allegedly proposed marriage to her, and she agreed on the basis of his alleged promise to marry her.
-
In March 2025, the petitioner allegedly took her to an Adventure Camp Resort, where they stayed overnight and allegedly had sexual intercourse.
-
The prosecution alleged that the sexual relationship occurred on the basis of the promise of marriage.
-
However, the Court noted that after the alleged incident, the petitioner approached the woman's mother and expressed his willingness to marry her.
-
The woman's mother allegedly refused the proposal.
-
The woman also referred to this fact in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.
-
The petitioner was arrested on 16 June 2026 and remained in judicial custody. His bail application before the Sessions Court had earlier been rejected on 9 July 2026, following which he approached the High Court seeking regular bail.
Issues
-
Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.
-
Whether the material available at the bail stage indicated that the alleged promise of marriage was made without any intention of fulfilling it, as contemplated by Section 69 of the BNS.
-
Whether the petitioner's subsequent conduct of approaching the woman's mother and expressing willingness to marry her indicated an intention to fulfil the promise.
-
Whether the fact that the proposed marriage did not ultimately take place, by itself, was sufficient at the bail stage to establish the necessary element of a false or deceitful promise to marry.
-
Whether the period already spent in custody and the progress of investigation supported the grant of regular bail.
Judgement
-
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the criminal petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner.
-
The Court focused particularly on the requirement under Section 69 BNS that the promise to marry must have been made without intention of fulfilling it.
-
The Court observed that the material before it showed that, after the alleged sexual relationship, the petitioner had approached the woman's mother and communicated that he was ready and willing to marry her. The mother's refusal to the proposal was an important circumstance considered by the Court.
-
Consequently, at the stage of considering bail, the Court held that it could not be said that the petitioner had no intention to marry the woman when the alleged promise was made.
-
The Court also took into account that the petitioner had been in custody since 16 June 2026 and that a major portion of the investigation had already been completed.
-
Execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the same amount.
-
Appear before the Trial Court regularly unless his appearance was exempted for valid reasons.
-
Not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
-
Not involve himself in similar offences in future.
-
Not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without its permission until disposal of the case.
Held
-
The Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
-
The Court held, at the bail stage, that the material on record did not establish that the petitioner had made the promise of marriage without any intention of fulfilling it, an important requirement for an offence under Section 69 BNS.
-
The fact that the petitioner subsequently approached the woman's mother and expressed his willingness to marry her was considered relevant to his alleged intention. Since the proposal was refused by the mother, the Court found that it could not, at that stage, conclude that the original promise was necessarily deceitful.
-
Importantly, this was a bail order and not a final determination of guilt or innocence.
Analysis
-
The central legal point concerns Section 69 BNS. The provision is not triggered merely because a promised marriage ultimately does not take place. The statutory requirement considered by the Court is whether the promise was made without an intention to fulfil it.
-
Thus, the Court examined the surrounding circumstances to determine whether there was material suggesting an absence of genuine intention from the outset.
-
A significant factor was the petitioner's alleged subsequent conduct. According to the material considered by the Court, he went to the woman's house, met her mother and stated that he was willing to marry her.
-
The Court treated this conduct as relevant to assessing whether the original promise was necessarily one made without an intention to marry.
-
A marriage that does not ultimately occur ≠ automatically a promise made without intention to marry.
-
For Section 69 to apply on the relevant allegation, the question of the accused's intention when the promise was made remains significant.
-
The High Court was deciding an application for regular bail, not conducting a full trial. Therefore, the Court assessed whether the material available at that stage justified continued custody.
-
The Court also considered that the petitioner had already remained in custody for more than two months and that the investigation was substantially progressed.
-
The order is significant in the context of the newly introduced Section 69 BNS, because it demonstrates that courts may closely examine the circumstances surrounding a promise to marry rather than treating the eventual failure of the relationship or marriage as conclusive proof of a deceitful promise.
-
However, the ruling should be understood within its procedural context: the Court was deciding bail, and the order does not amount to a final adjudication of the allegations at trial.