Court observes prolonged consensual relationship and prosecutrix's awareness of accused's marital status; finds no prima facie evidence of misconception of fact, granting bail with conditions
In a significant judgment delivered on September 11, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Vikrant Kotwal, a police officer accused of deceiving a female colleague, Nancy Devi, by promising marriage and engaging in a prolonged relationship, which led to serious criminal charges under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Samba, following a complaint by Nancy Devi, alleging that Vikrant Kotwal, despite being married, had proposed marriage to her and entered into a live-in relationship based on repeated assurances. During this relationship, Nancy claimed she became pregnant three times, twice undergoing termination under Kotwal's persuasion. She alleged that Kotwal concealed his marital status initially, continued to assure her of marriage, and physically assaulted her when she threatened to report the matter. The complaint further alleged that after the third pregnancy, Kotwal abandoned her by blocking all communication.
The Inquiry Officer's fact-finding inquiry recommended a detailed investigation, and FIR No. 178/2026 was registered under Sections 69, 83, 88, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Kotwal's anticipatory bail application was initially dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, due to the gravity of the allegations.
Upon hearing the case, Justice Sanjay Dhar referred to the Supreme Court's landmark rulings on anticipatory bail, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing that bail decisions require balancing individual liberty with societal interests and depend on the nature of the charges, conduct of the accused, and evidence at hand.
Critically analyzing the facts, the Court noted that while the prosecutrix was initially unaware of Kotwal's existing marriage, she continued the relationship after learning the truth, even entering into a marriage solemnized by a Pandit, though legally invalid due to bigamy laws. The Court observed that the prosecutrix was a mature police employee fully aware of Kotwal's status, and her continued relationship suggested consensual involvement rather than being based on deception or misconception of fact.
The Court drew extensively from the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mahesh Danu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024, which held that prolonged consensual relationships without protest or insistence on marriage undermine claims of false promises to marry. It was emphasized that criminalizing long-term consensual relationships that turn sour can have serious consequences and must be approached cautiously.
Given these considerations, the Court found prima facie that the prosecutrix's consent was not obtained under any misconception of fact as she knowingly continued the relationship despite knowing Kotwal's marital status. The Court also noted that Kotwal cooperated with the inquiry and was not evading investigation as claimed.
Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Vikrant Kotwal on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 and personal bond of the same amount with conditions that he cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with evidence or witnesses, and not leave Jammu & Kashmir without prior permission.
The judgment reflects the judiciary's nuanced approach in cases involving personal relationships and criminal charges, ensuring protection of individual liberty while allowing thorough investigation into serious allegations.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted to a police officer accused of deceiving a female colleague into a relationship based on false promises of marriage, taking into account the prolonged consensual relationship, the prosecutrix's awareness of the accused's marital status, and absence of prima facie evidence of misconception of fact.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 69, 83, 88, 115(2), and 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Vikrant Kotwal v. U.T. of J&K, (J&K and Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979311
