Anticipatory Bail Granted in Alleged Promise-to-Marry Case Involving a Long-Term Relationship

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the appellant’s application for anticipatory bail in a case alleging sexual relations on a promise of marriage, noting the parties’ relationship since 2024, the affidavits and live-in relationship agreement, and the delay before the FIR was lodged. The Court treated these circumstances, for the limited purpose of bail, as indicating a consensual relationship and granted protection from arrest without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case. The appellant was directed to cooperate with the investigation and comply with specified conditions. (Paras 10–22)

Key Proposition: For the limited purpose of deciding anticipatory bail on the facts recorded, the Court considered the parties’ continuing relationship, affidavits and live-in relationship agreement, together with the timing of the FIR, sufficient to grant anticipatory bail without determining the merits of the allegations.

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 69 – Alleged sexual relations on promise of marriage – Whether anticipatory bail should be granted – Held, bail granted on the facts of the case. (Paras 11–14)
• BNSS, 2023 – Section 482 – Anticipatory bail – Conditions for cooperation with investigation – Held, appellant required to comply with conditions. (Paras 14–21)
• SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 18-A(2) – Bar against anticipatory bail – Court granted bail on the factual assessment recorded in the order. (Paras 4–6, 12–14)

Background / Synopsis :

• The appellant, a 50-year-old advocate, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 535/2026 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Chhatarpur.
• The FIR invoked Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 3/5 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam.
• The prosecution case, as summarised by the Court, was that the 32-year-old complainant worked under the appellant’s guidance, that he assured her he would marry her, and that sexual relations occurred on 18 August 2025 and again in July 2026. The FIR was lodged on 3 August 2026.
• The appellant relied on an affidavit dated 26 February 2026 and a live-in relationship agreement dated 20 July 2026. The complainant and State opposed bail, alleging a false promise of marriage, pressure to convert religion and threats involving a video.
• The proceeding was a criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Issues For Consideration :

• Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the parties’ relationship history and the allegations in the FIR.
• Whether the circumstances warranted applying the statutory bar to anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act at this stage.

Submissions Of Parties :

Petitioner / Appellant:

• The appellant argued that both parties were adults and practising advocates, and that affidavits, chats and a live-in relationship agreement showed a consensual relationship.
• Counsel relied on Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, Gaurav Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra.

Respondent / State:

• The objector alleged that the appellant promised marriage, later refused, pressured the complainant to convert religion and used a video to threaten her.
• The State opposed bail, alleging that the appellant recorded a video during the first sexual encounter and threatened to make it viral.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

Re: Relationship and consent

• The Court noted that the parties had been in a relationship since 2024 and that the complainant had executed affidavits before the FIR was registered.
• The Court considered the relationship history and documents relied upon by the appellant while deciding the bail request.
• Held: On the facts then before it, the Court treated the case as one involving consensual relations for the limited purpose of the bail decision, without deciding the merits. (Paras 11–13)

Re: Entitlement to anticipatory bail

• The Court stated that it was inclined to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail.
• Held: The application was allowed, subject to a personal bond of ₹50,000 and one solvent surety for the like amount, along with the listed conditions. (Paras 13–21)

Notable Observations: None quoted. The Court expressly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. (Para 13)

Decision & Directions :

• The application/appeal was allowed. In the event of arrest, the appellant was to be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety for the like amount.
• The appellant must cooperate with the investigating agency, appear when directed, and continue appearing before the Investigating Officer until the charge-sheet is filed.
• The appellant must attend for medical examination and provide samples when directed.
• The appellant must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or contact prosecution witnesses, including the complainant.
• The appellant must avoid undue adjournments, assist in expeditious disposal and comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited :

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69 and 351(3): offences alleged in the FIR.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482: anticipatory bail; Section 482(2): conditions referred to in the order.
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a), 14-A and 18-A(2): offences, appeal and statutory bar discussed in the proceedings.
• Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrya Adhiniyam – Sections 3/5: provisions invoked in the FIR.
• Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 540 – Relied on by the appellant.
• Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 987 – Relied on by the appellant.
• Gaurav Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 27207/2022 – Relied on by the appellant.
• Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 – Relied on by the appellant.