Jaipur High Court Granted Bail in Rape Case Prolonged Relationship, Consent and Promise of Marriage Considered

What Was the Case Before the Rajasthan High Court?

The accused-petitioner was Dinesh, aged about 48 years, who was confined at Central Jail, Jaipur.

The case arose from FIR No. 38/2026, registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West). The FIR invoked:

• Section 64(1) BNS
• Section 69 BNS
• Section 82(2) BNS
• Section 318(2) BNS
• Section 351(2) BNS
• Section 66D of the Information Technology Act

The order records these offences in its opening case details.

The complainant, according to the FIR as recorded by the Court, was a 52-year-old divorcee residing in Pune. She allegedly came into contact with the accused through Shaadi.com, where he represented himself as a divorcee and allegedly assured her of marriage.

The FIR alleged that after she came to Jaipur on 11 October 2025, the accused established physical relations with her against her will and thereafter continued the relationship on the assurance that he would marry her.

The complainant further alleged that the accused repeatedly postponed the marriage and subsequently disclosed that he was already married and living with his wife and son. Allegations were also made concerning threats, harassment and pressure relating to pregnancy and miscarriage.

These are allegations recorded from the FIR, and the High Court’s bail order does not constitute a final determination of their truth.

---

What Did the Accused Argue for Bail?

On behalf of the accused, it was argued that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that continued incarceration was not warranted.

The defence also contended that the accused had been implicated on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

The prosecution opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused should not be enlarged on bail.

The High Court considered the submissions of both sides and examined the material available on record before reaching its decision on bail.

---

Why Did the Rajasthan High Court Grant Bail?

One of the most significant aspects of the order is the Court’s examination of the overall nature and duration of the relationship.

The Court noted that the material on record indicated that the complainant had:

• remained in the company of the petitioner for a considerable period;
• voluntarily accompanied him on several occasions;
• travelled with him;
• stayed with him at different places;
• met him repeatedly; and
• continued physical relations over a substantial period.

The Court observed that these circumstances, taken cumulatively, prima facie indicated her continued association with the petitioner.

The Court also noted that, according to the material available on record, the complainant was aware that the petitioner was married and nevertheless continued associating with him for a considerable period.

This aspect became one of the circumstances considered by the Court while deciding the bail application.

---

Rajasthan High Court on Consent in a Rape Case

A particularly important portion of the order concerns the distinction between consent and subsequent grievance or disappointment arising from a relationship.

The Court observed that an allegation of rape necessarily involves sexual intercourse against the will or without the consent of the prosecutrix.

However, at the stage of bail, the Court found that the circumstances emerging from the record did not disclose a continuous absence of willingness on the complainant’s part.

The Court referred to the prolonged association, repeated meetings, travelling together, staying together and continuation of physical relations over a considerable period as circumstances that were, at that stage, suggestive of voluntary participation in the relationship.

This observation was made for the limited purpose of deciding bail.

---

What Did the Court Say About the Promise of Marriage?

The Court also considered the subsequent revelation regarding the accused’s marital status and the fact that the relationship did not culminate in marriage.

The Court observed that these circumstances could undoubtedly have caused distress and grievance to the complainant. However, it held that such subsequent events, by themselves, could not retrospectively render every act of physical intimacy between the parties as an act committed against her will.

The Court emphasised that the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties must be considered in their entirety.

This is an important aspect for understanding the order: the Court did not finally decide whether the complainant’s consent was legally valid or whether it was vitiated.

Rather, the Court expressly stated that this ultimate question would have to be examined at the appropriate stage of trial.

---

Did the Rajasthan High Court Decide the Accused Was Innocent?

No.

The order is a bail order, not a judgment after trial.

The Court specifically stated that the question of whether the complainant consented to the physical relationship and whether such consent was legally vitiated was a matter to be examined at the appropriate stage of trial.

Further, while granting bail, the Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case.

The final direction also makes it clear that the observations made in the bail order would not prejudice the trial court while considering the case on its own merits.

Therefore, the order should properly be understood as a decision concerning pre-trial liberty, rather than a final adjudication of the allegations.

---

Delay in Trial Also Considered

Another factor considered by the Rajasthan High Court was the possibility that the trial could take a considerable amount of time.

The Court observed that there was a high probability that the trial might take a long time to conclude.

Considering this factor together with the circumstances emerging from the record, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail.

Thus, the bail decision was based on the totality of circumstances, rather than on a single factor.

---

Bail Granted Under Section 483 BNSS

The Rajasthan High Court ultimately allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS.

The Court directed that the accused be released on bail upon furnishing:

Personal bond: ₹50,000

Sureties: Two sureties of ₹25,000 each

The bonds were to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

---

Conditions Imposed by the Rajasthan High Court

The Court imposed several conditions while granting bail.

1. Regular appearance before the Trial Court

The accused was directed to ensure regular appearance before the Trial Court on every date of hearing, either personally or through his duly authorised counsel.

He was also directed not to obstruct or unnecessarily delay the trial.

2. Appearance before Police Station

The accused was directed to appear before the concerned police station at regular intervals, preferably once every month, to satisfy the authorities that he continued to reside at his stated address and had not left the same.

3. Statements of witnesses

The Court directed that statements of witnesses namely Sunita, Niranjan, Kiran and Sonali Singh, if already recorded by the Investigating Officer, be placed before the Trial Court in accordance with law.

4. Expeditious trial

The Trial Court was directed to make every endeavour to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously and avoid unnecessary adjournments to either party.

---

Key Legal Takeaways from the Rajasthan High Court Bail Order

The order provides several important points for advocates handling bail applications involving allegations arising out of intimate relationships.

1. Bail Court Examines Broad Circumstances

At the bail stage, the Court may consider the broad circumstances emerging from the record rather than conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence as would happen during trial.

In this case, the Court examined the nature, duration and conduct of the relationship.

2. Prolonged Association May Be Relevant at Bail Stage

The Court considered repeated meetings, travelling, staying together and continuation of physical relations over a considerable period as relevant circumstances.

However, this does not mean that prolonged association automatically determines the question of consent in every case.

The present order itself recognises that the ultimate question regarding consent and its legal validity remains a matter for trial.

3. Knowledge of Existing Marriage Was Considered

The Court noted the material suggesting that the complainant knew about the accused’s existing marriage and continued the relationship.

This circumstance was specifically taken into account while considering bail.

4. Bail Does Not Amount to Acquittal

Grant of bail does not mean that the accused has been acquitted or that the prosecution allegations have been finally rejected.

The High Court expressly restricted its observations to the bail application.

5. Trial Court Remains Free to Decide the Case

The High Court expressly clarified that its observations would not prejudice the Trial Court when the case is considered on its own merits.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the case number before the Rajasthan High Court?

The matter was S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10257/2026, decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, on 18 September 2026.

Which FIR was involved?

The case arose from FIR No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West).

Under which provision was bail granted?

The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The application was ultimately allowed.

What factors did the Court consider while granting bail?

The Court considered, among other circumstances, the prolonged nature of the relationship, repeated meetings, travelling and staying together, continuation of physical relations, the complainant’s knowledge of the petitioner’s marital status, the overall circumstances and the possibility of a lengthy trial.

Did the Court finally decide the issue of consent?

No. The Court expressly stated that whether the complainant consented and whether such consent was legally vitiated was a matter to be examined at the appropriate stage of trial.

What was the bail bond amount?

The Court directed release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Does this bail order mean that the accused has been acquitted?

No. The order only concerns bail. The High Court specifically clarified that its observations would not prejudice the Trial Court’s decision on the merits. The trial will be fought by best advocate in jaipur and only thereafter the acquittal will happen.

---

Conclusion

The 18 September 2026 Rajasthan High Court bail order in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10257/2026 demonstrates how a Court may assess the overall circumstances of an alleged intimate relationship while considering an application for bail.

In this case, the Court considered the prolonged association between the parties, repeated meetings, travelling and staying together, continuation of physical relations, the alleged knowledge of the petitioner’s marital status, and the likely duration of the trial. These factors, considered cumulatively, weighed in favour of granting bail.

At the same time, the Court carefully preserved the distinction between bail-stage assessment and final adjudication. It did not finally determine the question of consent, nor did it decide the ultimate merits of the prosecution case. Those issues remain for consideration at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

For high court advocate in jaipur handling bail applications in Rajasthan involving allegations under the BNS, allegations of rape, promise of marriage and disputed consent, the order is therefore relevant for understanding the type of circumstances that may be examined at the pre-trial stage.

Source: Order dated 18 September 2026, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10257/2026.

Read the complete order here

By Bhuvnesh Kumar Goyal
High Court Advocate in Jaipur