[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sourabh Uikey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14744
1 MCRC-8392-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8392 of 2026
SOURABH UIKEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mrigendra Kumar Atma learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms.Geeta Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
None for the complainant, though notice is served.
ORDER
This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS in crime
No.05/2026 registered at Police Station- Mahila Police District Balaghat
under Section 64(2)(m), 296, 351(3) of BNS.
2. The prosecution story is that on dated 29.01.2026 victim, with
her brother, came with a written application that she is a student of Sardar
Patel College, and pursuing her B.Pharmacy in Jabalpur. She met with
present applicant through Instagram from where there relationship is getting
closure day by day thereafter both are liking each other, present applicant in
the promise of marriage called her on 22.11.2024 in Hotel Pride in Balaghat
where he committed sexual intercourse with the victim and on dated
20.02.2025 when she came to Jabalpur for her examination the present
applicant came to take her and take her to lovely Hotel Jabalpur where again
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14744
2 MCRC-8392-2026
he committed sexual intercourse with her, thereafter the Victim told the story
to her mother that on 01.06.2025 the applicant came to Balaghat and take her
to Hotel Pride where he again committed sexual intercourse with her again
on 05.09.2025 applicant again committed sexual intercourse with her and
when she proposed about the marriage to the applicant he refused to do so.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is
a major girl, and from the prosecution case itself, it is clear that there was a
consensual relationship between them. Later on, she had made a false report
that the applicant had physically exploited her on the pretext of marriage.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the prayer
and submits that as per the version of the prosecutrix, there was a false
promise of marriage, therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of
anticipatory bail.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
entire facts that the prosecutrix is a major and was in relationship with the
applicant and also the fact that the applicant is a government servant working
in police department, therefore prima facie this Court finds that it is a fit case
in which the applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Sourabh
Uikey shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to
the satisfaction of arresting officer.
7. Applicant shall abide by the following conditions under Section
482 (2) of B.N.S.S.:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14744
3 MCRC-8392-2026
(a) Applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by
a Police Officer as and when required;
(b) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;
(c) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of
the Court;
(d) He shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or
suspected.
(e) He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-
section (3) of Section 480 of the B.N.S.S.
8. With the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
