Cricketer Gets Interim Relief in Section 69 BNS Case

Cricketer Yash Dayal, accused of false promise of marriage, facing a Section 69 BNS case, was granted interim protection by the Allahabad High Court. The Court flagged a lack of evidence of deceit in the FIR.

What began as a private relationship soon became a matter of public scrutiny and legal consequence.

Yash Dayal, a promising Indian cricketer, was accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the law that criminalizes sexual relations under a false promise of marriage.

The complainant, a woman with whom he shared a five-year relationship, alleged that she was physically exploited on the pretext of marriage. She filed an FIR on 6 July 2025 at Indirapuram Police Station, Ghaziabad, just days after Dayal’s selection into the Indian cricket team.

But was it deception from the start or just a relationship that didn’t end the way someone hoped?

Accusation & the Petition under Section 69 BNS

The FIR accused Yash Dayal of:

Maintaining a physical relationship under a false promise to marry.
Introducing the complainant to his family to build that trust.
Withdrawing commitment after gaining fame – allegedly for ulterior motives.

In response, Dayal moved the Allahabad High Court, seeking to:

Quash the FIR, and
Stay his arrest under Section 69 BNS.

Read: What Does Section 69 BNS Say? Full Legal Breakdown and Explanation

What the Court Heard

Dayal’s legal team argued:

The relationship was mutual, sustained over five years.
There was no intent to deceive; the promise of marriage, if any, was genuine at the time.
Financial assistance provided during the relationship showed goodwill, not coercion.
The FIR appeared motivated by personal bitterness, especially after his cricket selection.

The State, meanwhile, argued:

That the petitioner had persistently exploited the complainant.
That he involved her with his family, suggesting intention to marry, which later turned out to be false.

Key Observations by the Allahabad HC

After reviewing the FIR and preliminary arguments, the Court noted:

🟤 “The relationship between the parties continued for five years. At this stage, it is difficult to ascertain whether there was any promise of marriage or if there was any such promise, whether it was false from the beginning…”

🟤 “Explanation to Section 69 BNS defines ‘deceitful means’… [but] the FIR does not disclose sexual intercourse by deceit.”

🟤 “This FIR appears to have been lodged after the relationship turned sour.”

The bench declined to make conclusive findings but acknowledged that the matter requires deeper consideration.

The Interim Relief

The Court granted the following relief to Dayal:

No arrest shall be made till the next date of hearing or till submission of the police report — whichever is earlier.
The State was directed to file a counter-affidavit.
The complainant was issued notice and asked to respond.

This effectively stays coercive action while legal proceedings continue – a temporary breather, not a final verdict.

Our View: What This Means for Section 69 BNS Cases?

This case adds to the growing list of instances where courts are questioning the automatic criminalisation of failed relationships.

Key takeaways:

A long-term relationship doesn’t inherently prove deception.

Courts are closely examining the timeline: When was the promise made? When did the complaint arise? Was there silence, and why?

Section 69 BNS, while designed to protect, must not become a tool for emotional revenge.

The Allahabad HC’s interim order strikes a careful balance: it protects the accused’s liberty while allowing investigation to proceed.

📘 Want to read the full court order?
Message us personally on WhatsApp to request a copy.

📢 If you’re navigating a similar situation, you’re not alone.
Join our WhatsApp Community “Section 69 BNS | Defence Strategies for Men” to get exclusive updates on latest court judgments, electronic evidence tips, and real legal strategies that can protect you. Stay informed. Stay ahead. Join now.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique, and you should not act or refrain from acting based on any information on this site without seeking professional legal advice.