Shri Neev Jain Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.21/2026 REGISTERED BY

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17892 CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

VISHWESHWARAPURAM P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 69 OF BNS, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF THE 37th ACMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE, BANGALORE HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 03.03.2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1855/2026.COPY SERVED ON SPP.POST CRL.P BEFORE COURT FOR ORDERS.(VIDE R(J) MEMO NO.138/2025, DATED 29.01.2026) - SOPVA090326

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri.Chandrashekar R.P., learned counsel appearing

¶25

for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the material on record.

¶26

The petitioner is before the Court seeking his release on grant of bail for it having rejected before the Court of Session in Crime No.21/2026 for offence punishable under

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17892 CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Section 69 of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner is the accused. The de facto complainant and the petitioner meet on a social media platform - Instagram. They develop friendship, friendship blossoms into relationship, relationship into the two getting physical. The de facto complainant after about six months of the relationship of the two, registers a complaint on 04.01.2026 alleging that the petitioner has indulged in physical relationship with the complainant on the pretext of marriage and there is breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the offence under section 69 of the BNS sprang. Immediately after the registration of the crime on 14.02.2026, it transpires that the petitioner has been taken into custody on 17.02.2026 and remains in custody, even today, which is now close to 50 days.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶31

submits that the acts between the petitioner and de facto complainant were all consensual and go on for a period of six months after they became friends or fell in love which continued for a period of six months.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:17892 CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The issue is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the de facto complainant or the accused. The issue is the petitioner remains in custody for the last 45 days for an offence which were all acts between the petitioner and the complainant on consensus. The Apex Court in the case of AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230 , considers this aspect and holds that for consensual acts between the two or a breakup of a relationship would not amount to a rape under section 376 of the IPC.

¶36

If the findings of the Apex Court is paraphrased to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the petitioner does become entitled to be set at liberty for grant of bail as consensual acts cannot lead the petitioner to be in prison for 45 days now.

¶37

In that light, the petition deserves to succeed with

¶38

the petitioner being granted bail on certain stringent conditions.

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:17892 CRL.P No. 3868 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶45

(ii) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.21/2025 registered before Vishweshwarapuram Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

(a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶47