The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court emphasized that for a promise to marry to be considered as inducing consent for sexual relations under a misconception of fact, it must be evident that the promise was false right from the start of the relationship. In such cases, the promise itself becomes a crucial factor in the woman's decision to consent.

However, if the accused initially makes a promise but later becomes unable to fulfill it due to unforeseen and compelling circumstances, this would not constitute a false promise that misled the woman into consenting to sexual advances.

In the case at hand, the complainant and the petitioner were in a relationship for two years. During this period, the petitioner allegedly promised marriage to the complainant, which led to a physical relationship between them at her residence. Upon discovering that the petitioner was involved with another woman, the complainant confronted him about his infidelity. Distraught by this revelation, the complainant consumed poison and required hospitalization for treatment. Following her discharge from the hospital, she lodged a complaint accusing the petitioner of offenses under Sections 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner has now filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.

The Petitioner argued that there was no physical contact between the petitioner and the complainant, and asserted that there was no fraudulent intent from the outset to deceive the complainant. In support of this argument, the petitioner referred to judgments such as Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan and another, and Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.

The state argued that the case is currently under investigation, and it is imperative for the police to assess the petitioner's virility under Section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the state's submission, the petitioner made a promise to marry the complainant and engaged in a sexual relationship with her.

The Hon’ble court highlighted that for an offense under Section 376 of the IPC to be established, the woman's consent to engage in sexual activity within a relationship must be obtained through a misconception of facts and false promises of marriage. It emphasized that this false aspect must be evident right from the beginning of their relationship. Only then can a promise to marry be considered as inducing a misconception of fact, leading the woman to consent to the accused person's sexual advances. Conversely, if the accused initially makes a promise but later becomes unable to fulfill it due to unforeseen and compelling circumstances, such a situation would not constitute a false promise causing confusion.

Based on the considerations and relying on judgments such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, the court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. The court's decision was informed by these precedents in assessing the nature of the promise made by the Petitioner and its implications in the case.

With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal Petition.

Case Title: Nakka Ashok V. State

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subba Reddy Satti

Case No.: Criminal Petition No.3372 of 2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sri G.Venkata Reddy

Advocate for the Respondent: Sri S.Venkata Sai Nath,