Man Wanted To Marry Her, But Woman’s Mother Refused: Karnataka High Court Says Promise To Marry Was Not Deceitful, Grants Bail U/S 69 BNS

Can a man be accused of making a false promise of marriage when he actually approached the woman’s family to marry her, but her mother rejected him? The Karnataka High Court examined this crucial fact while granting him bail in a Section 69 BNS case.

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to a 35-year-old man booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, after noting that he had approached the woman’s mother expressing his willingness to marry her, but the proposal was refused.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty was hearing the bail petition, who was arrested on June 16, 2026, in Crime No. 189/2026 registered at Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru. The FIR included allegations under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 69, 89 and 352 of the BNS. The Sessions Court rejected his earlier bail application on July 9, 2026.

According to the complaint, the woman, aged 35, met the petitioner in 2023. They developed a friendship and started regularly exchanging messages from December 2024. She alleged that the petitioner proposed to her and promised to marry her.

In March 2025, they allegedly stayed overnight at Adventure Camp Resort, where they had sexual intercourse. The allegation against the man was based, among other things, on the claim of a promise to marry.

However, an important fact emerged from the woman’s own version. After the alleged incident, the petitioner went to her house, met her mother and said that he was ready and willing to marry her. Her mother refused the proposal. The woman also specifically stated this in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS.

The High Court considered this significant because Section 69 BNS requires sexual intercourse by deceitful means or a promise to marry made without any intention of fulfilling that promise.

The Court observed:

“…For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making a promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same…. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner, who allegedly had promised to marry the first informant, had approached her mother, but the proposal was refused by the mother of the first informant… In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant”

The order itself records that since the petitioner approached the woman’s mother with the marriage proposal, “it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant.”

The Court also noted that the petitioner had remained in custody since June 16, 2026, and that a major portion of the investigation had already been completed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and granted him regular bail on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties for the same amount. He was also directed to regularly appear before the Trial Court, not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses, not involve himself in similar offences and not leave the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A failed marriage proposal is not automatically a false promise to marry.
• The man actually approached the woman’s family and expressed willingness to marry her, but her mother refused the proposal.
• The Karnataka High Court noted that, at this stage, it could not be said that the man never intended to marry the woman.
• A serious Section 69 BNS case cannot rest merely on the fact that the marriage eventually did not happen; the accused’s intention from the beginning matters.
• The man had already been in custody since June 16, 2026, before the High Court granted him regular bail after noting that most of the investigation was complete.