[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aakash Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
1
MCrC No.8420/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 27TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026
M.CR.C. NO.8420/2026
AAKASH PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Pandey, Advocate and
Shri Ashif Ali Khan, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Sharad Sharma, Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Harshwardhan Soni, Advocate for the objector.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
Heard.
2. This first application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity "BNSS") has been filed on behalf of
the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail, who is apprehending his arrest
in connection with Crime No.7/2026 registered at Police Station Mandla
Mahila Thana, District Mandla, for commission of offence punishable
under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNS").
3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the prosecutrix filed a
complaint at Mahila Thana, Mandla, on 09.02.2026 stating she befriended
the applicant via Instagram. Their first meeting occurred on 11.02.2025, at
the applicant's residence. On 23.03.2025, the applicant reportedly induced
her to have sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage, then such a
pattern continued approximately eight to nine times. They last interacted in
July, 2025, the applicant allegedly severed contact, leading the prosecutrix
to attempt suicide by jumping from her roof on 20.08.2025, due to extreme
mental distress, for which her treatment is going-on. On that basis, the
aforesaid crime has been registered against the applicant.
4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant sanguinely submits that no
prima facie offence under Section 69 of BNS is established, asserting that
the relationship was consensual and lacked any deceitful intent. It is
submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix, both were adults whose
families had initially proposed their marriage, however, the proposed
marriage was later called off after the applicant's family discovered the
prosecutrix suffered from a specific ailment. Notably, the families
reportedly reached a written settlement on 10.09.2025, mediated by
community elders, wherein the applicant's father paid Rs.5 Lakh as
compensation in exchange for an assurance that no legal action would be
pursued. Learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that this was a legitimate
breakup between consenting adults rather than a sexual relationship
obtained through a false promise of marriage. Given that the applicant is a
government servant at risk of losing his livelihood and has pledged full
cooperation with the investigation, he prays for the grant of anticipatory
bail. To reinforce, he places reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court
in the case of Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC
108, Khamendra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh 2024 SCC OnLine Chh
12487 and Prem Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh 2024 SCC OnLine
Chh 10471.
5. In contrast the learned counsel for the respondent/State and the
learned counsel for the objector contend that the applicant engaged in
sexual relations under a false promise of marriage, later evidenced by his
withdrawal from communication. They highlight that these circumstances
drove the prosecutrix to an attempted suicide. Furthermore, they argue that
since the prosecutrix was not a party to the settlement discussions between
the parents and community members, the agreement is neither binding on
her nor does it estop her from seeking legal recourse. It was also noted that
the payment of Rs.5 Lakh to her father was made without her involvement
or consent. It is further submitted that as the applicant repeatedly
established physical relations with the prosecutrix under a false promise of
marriage, the ingredients of the offence are squarely made out.
Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of
anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the objector places reliance on the
decisions in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC
730, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171,
Ananta Ray & Ors. v. State of West Bengal passed by High Court of
Calcutta in C.R.A. No.517/2010 and an order of Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.259/2016 (Banti @ Vishwajeet
Singh Bhadauriya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) on 28.11.2025.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the integral
part of the case diary.
7. Albeit, at the stage of bail, the evidence on merits is not required to
be thoroughly appreciated, but to convince whether prima facie ingredients
of offence exist or not, upto that extent, and to ascertain whether it is a
false implication or over-implication, the material placed in the case diary
needs to be looked into.
8. Indubitably, the applicant is charged with the offence punishable
under Section 69 of B.N.S. and in order to fathom the depth of the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be
apposite to quote Section 69 of B.N.S., which reads as under:-
"69 Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc;-
Whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry
to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and
has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: "deceitful means" shall include the false
promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marring
after suppressing identity."
9. It is crystal clear from the aforesaid provisions that to constitute the
offence under Section 69 of B.N.S. it is necessary that accused must enter
into sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by employing deceitful means,
which includes - false promise of marriage without intention of fulfilling
the same. In the case at hand, it is to be seen whether the applicant has
made physical relation with the prosecutrix by making promise of marriage
without the intention of fulfilling the same.
10. As per the prosecution portrayal, the prosecutrix and the applicant
initiated contact via Instagram and met personally for the first time on
11.02.2025. On 23.03.2025, at the applicant's invitation, the prosecutrix
visited his room where they entered into a physical relationship. The
prosecutrix alleges that the applicant repeatedly contacted her, leading to
eight or nine instances of physical intimacy under the pretext of marriage,
before he abruptly ceased communication. Notably, the prosecutrix is a 21-
year-old educated woman. A written agreement dated 10.09.2025
(Annexure-A/3), executed between the fathers of both parties, confirms
that a marriage proposal had previously existed between them, as they
belong to the same community. It is inferred that their digital
communication and subsequent physical intimacy developed following this
matrimonial proposal. However, the marriage ultimately failed to
materialize due to familial disagreements. To address the resulting social
stigma, a settlement was reached in the presence of community elders,
under which the applicant's father paid Rs.5 Lakh to the father of the
prosecutrix. While such a parental agreement does not automatically
exculpate the applicant from criminal liability, it serves as crucial evidence
that the relationship and intimacy were preceded by a genuine marriage
proposal initiated by their families.
11. In Lavesh (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the
objector, the Supreme Court has held that normally the Court should not
exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail in disregard of the
magnitude and seriousness of the matter.
12. In Pradeep Sharma (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
the objector, the Supreme Court has held that "It is clear from the above
decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offence in
terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of
anticipatory bail".
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Samadhan S/o. Sitaram
Manmothe v. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 LiveLaw (SC)
1137 after relying on the case of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of
Marashtra (2024) 11 SCC 398 has held in paragraph 27 as under:-
"27. In this regard, it becomes relevant to refer to the decision of this
Court in the case of Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2024) 11 SCC 398, ("Mahesh Damu") wherein the following
observations were made:
"27. In our view, if a man is accused of having sexual relationship
by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held
criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable
directly to the false promise made and not qualified by other
circumstances or consideration. A woman may have reasons to
have physical relationship other than the promise of marriage
made by the man, such as personal liking for the male partner
without insisting upon formal marital ties.
28. Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained
for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said
with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely
because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her.
Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was
purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct
nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by
any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of
consent under misconception of fact."
(underlining by us)"
and further held in paragraph 31 as under:-
"31. This Court is conscious of the societal context in which, in a
country such as ours, the institution of marriage holds deep social and
cultural significance. It is, therefore, not uncommon for a woman to
repose complete faith in her partner and to consent to physical intimacy
on the assurance that such a relationship would culminate in a lawful
and socially recognised marriage. In such circumstances, the promise of
marriage becomes the very foundation of her consent, rendering it
conditional rather than absolute. It is, thus, conceivable that such
consent may stand vitiated where it is established that the promise of
marriage was illusory, made in bad faith, and with no genuine intention
of fulfilment, solely to exploit the woman. The law must remain
sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been breached and
dignity violated, lest the protective scope of Section 376 of the IPC be
reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved. At the same time,
the invocation of this principle must rest upon credible evidence and
concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral
conjecture."
14. In view of the foregoing discourse, based on factual and legal
matrix, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant harboured
no malicious intent from the inception of the relationship. Both the
prosecutrix and the applicant, being adults, engaged in a sexual
relationship of their own volition. The subsequent failure of the marriage
to materialize appears to be a case of a relationship breakdown rather than
a deceptive promise to marry. Therefore, he is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
15. In view of the above discourse, this Court is inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Consequently, anticipatory bail
application filed on behalf of applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the
event of his arrest, the applicant namely Aakash Patel shall be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Arresting Officer. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by the
conditions as enumerated under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
16. It is made clear that while allowing this application, this Court has
not expressed any view on merits of the case.
17. Accordingly, this MCRC stands allowed.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
