[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9895
1 MCRC-5272-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5272 of 2026
VIKRAM PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Dubey - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Aditya Gupta - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to FIR/Crime No.07/2026,
registered at Police Station- Gosalpur, District - Jabalpur (M.P.) for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 69, 61(2), 332 B of BNS.
Applicant is in jail since 08.01.2026.
2. As per the prosecution story, an FIR was lodged on 08.01.2026,
wherein it is alleged by the complainant that that she has acquaintance with
Saurabh Patel, for the past about eight years, since the year 2016. It is stated
that she first met with him at Panagar during a retirement function held at the
house of the in-laws of her aunt's daughter, namely Priyaka Patel,where both
of them exchanged their mobile numbers. Thereafter, they allegedly
remained in regular telephonic contact. Saurabh Patel is stated to be a distant
relative of the prosecutrix and used to frequently visit her house. It is further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9895
2 MCRC-5272-2026
alleged that Saurabh Patel expressed his liking towards the prosecutrix and
assured her that he would marry her. The prosecutrix claims that she
consented to the proposal subject to the condition that the accused would
first convince her family members. On 27.06.2025, during a late-night
telephonic conversation, they suggested that they should meet the next day,
to which the prosecutrix agreed. On 28.06.2025, at around 10:00 AM, the
prosecutrix left her house on the pretext of going to college, whereupon the
accused Saurabh Patel was allegedly waiting near the bypass on his
motorcycle, along with his friend present applicant Vikram Patel, resident of
Bhidari, Police Station Panagar. The prosecutrix was taken by the applicant
and co-accused Saurabh Patel to Yuvraj Hotel, situated near Jujhari of
Gosalpur. Saurabh Patel allegedly went upstairs to a hotel room along with
the prosecutrix, while Vikram Patel remained outside near the road, waiting
for the co-accused. It is alleged that Vikram Patel actively facilitated and
aided the co-accused in establishing physical relations with the prosecutrix. It
is so alleged that Saurabh Patel had physical relations with the prosecutrix
for the first time in the said hotel. The prosecutrix claims that she objected
and stated that physical relations should be established only after marriage,
whereupon Saurabh Patel allegedly assured her that the marriage would take
place shortly. After the said incident, the applicant and the co-accused
brought the prosecutrix back and dropped her at Gandhidham Bypass at
around 4:30 PM, and it is further alleged that Vikram Patel also reassured her
by stating that the co-accused Saurabh Patel was a good person and would
marry her, and that there was no harm in having a physical relationship. On
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9895
3 MCRC-5272-2026
22.12.2025, Saurabh Patel came to the house of the prosecutrix during the
day time, when her mother and sister-in-law were present. It is alleged that,
believing that Saurabh Patel had come to finalize the marriage, the family
members did not raise any objection. Thereafter, Sourabh Patel refused to
marry the prosecutrix. Therefore, FIR was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a friend of the main accused, Sourabh Patel,
and had only accompanied him by taking the victim/prosecutrix along with
Sourabh Patel on his motorcycle to the said hotel. No other role is attributed
to the present applicant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the main
accused, Sourabh Patel, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court. Therefore, it is prayed that applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the present applicant has also
played an active role in the commission of the offence and, therefore, prays
for rejection of the bail application.
5. Heard the submissions and perused the case diary.
6. Having taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case, the role attributed to the applicant and considering the principle that
"bail is the rule and jail is the exception" , and the provisions of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, but without expressing any view on the merits of
the case, I deem it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, the
application is allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:9895
4 MCRC-5272-2026
7. It is directed that applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for
his regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that
he shall remain present before the concerned Court on all the dates fixed by
it during trial. He shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section
480(3) of BNSS, 2023.
8 . This order shall be effective till the end of the trial. However, in
case of bail jump and breach of any of the conditions of bail, it shall become
ineffective.
9. Certified copy as per rules.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
