Legal Issue

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ought to be granted to an accused booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/false promise of marriage), where the accused contends the relationship was long-standing and consensual and the FIR a counterblast to a money dispute.

Brief Facts

The prosecutrix and the applicant were known to each other for about six years and were allegedly in a live-in relationship. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, which he subsequently reneged on, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 69 BNS at Police Station Gohalpur, Jabalpur. The case diary further disclosed an allegation that upon the prosecutrix becoming pregnant, the applicant attempted to terminate the pregnancy by providing her pills for that purpose. The applicant sought anticipatory bail, contending he was falsely implicated, that the relationship was consensual and long-term, that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast after he demanded repayment of Rs. 1,10,000 advanced to the prosecutrix, that there was no territorial nexus with the police station concerned, and that he had clean antecedents with no flight risk or risk of evidence-tampering. The State opposed, contending the FIR disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation, and that the existence of a long acquaintance or live-in relationship did not by itself negate the specific allegations of a false promise of marriage.

Court's Reasoning

- On the sufficiency of the case-diary allegations The Court examined the case diary and found it specifically disclosed that the applicant had induced the physical relationship through a promise of marriage, subsequently reneged on that promise, and — per a further allegation — attempted to terminate the prosecutrix's resulting pregnancy by providing her pills for that purpose. The Court treated these as disputed questions of fact going to the core of the Section 69 BNS allegation, requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence rather than summary resolution at the anticipatory-bail stage.

- On the "consensual relationship" defence The Court held that mere consensual continuation of a relationship over an extended period does not, by itself, conclusively establish entitlement to anticipatory bail. It reasoned that consent to a physical relationship does not confer upon the accused an unrestricted or unconditional right to act in any manner — meaning the long duration and ostensibly consensual character of the relationship could not, standing alone, neutralise the specific inducement-based allegation at this threshold stage.

- On the precedents relied upon by the applicant The Court distinguished the two coordinate-bench orders cited by the applicant (M.Cr.C. No. 8420/2026 and M.Cr.C. No. 17649/2026), holding that they turned on their own distinguishable facts and did not lay down any rule conferring an automatic right to anticipatory bail in cases of this nature.

Judgment

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Legal Significance

The order reaffirms that in prosecutions under Section 69 BNS (false promise of marriage), a long-standing or consensual nature of the relationship is not, by itself, sufficient to entitle an accused to anticipatory bail where the FIR and case diary disclose specific allegations — such as inducement by promise of marriage and conduct surrounding a resulting pregnancy — that raise disputed factual questions warranting investigation. It illustrates that at the anticipatory-bail stage, courts will decline to treat consent to a relationship as foreclosing scrutiny of allegations concerning the circumstances in which that consent was obtained or exploited.

Link to Official Judgement here

Case Title

Abhiraj Jogi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number

Misc. Criminal Case No. 45854 of 2026

Citation

2026MPHC-JBP78510

Court

High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

Bench

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari

Date of Judgment

28 September 2026