MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Advocate Over False-Promise-To-Marry Charge By Client

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore bench has refused to grant anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of establishing a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage while concealing that he was already married, observing that he had misused his position when the woman approached him for legal consultation.

Justice Gajendra Singh dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (section 438 of CrPC), by the applicant, referred to in the order as "S," who sought protection from arrest in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Najhiri, Ujjain, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which criminalises sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including a false promise of marriage.

According to the prosecution's case, the prosecutrix had approached the applicant, who practices as an advocate before the District Court, Ujjain, for legal consultation. It was during this consultation that the applicant allegedly proposed marriage, telling her that he liked her and wished to marry her, while also representing that he was unmarried. The woman initially turned down the proposal but, "considering her future," eventually agreed.

The order records that on September 7, 2025, the applicant took the prosecutrix to a hotel on Dewas Road, where a room had been booked in his name, and allegedly insisted on establishing a physical relationship with her. When she resisted, he assured her that he would marry her, after which physical relations were allegedly established and repeated on later occasions. When the woman later pressed him on the marriage, the applicant reportedly cited his mother's ill health as the reason for delay. It was only when she insisted again, shortly before the FIR was lodged, that the applicant refused to marry her outright. The prosecutrix subsequently learnt that he was already married and had a one-year-old child, following which she lodged the case.

The applicant's counsel, Advocate Manish Yadav, argued that his client had been falsely implicated, pointing out that in an earlier complaint filed by the prosecutrix in 2024, she had not disclosed any relationship with the applicant, and that proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ujjain, on June 7, 2026, showed the circumstances in which the present allegations later emerged. It was submitted that the applicant, a permanent resident of Ujjain, was not a flight risk and that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

Advocate Sanjay Kumar Chouhan, appearing for the victim, opposed the plea, submitting that the failure of the relationship could not be a ground to condone the applicant's conduct. He pointed to a separate FIR registered at Police Station Kharakuan, Ujjain, alleging that the applicant had physically assaulted the prosecutrix and tried to delete photographs documenting the relationship from her phone, besides extending threats to her before the police. Counsel argued that given the applicant's conduct and his position vis-à-vis the prosecutrix, he did not deserve anticipatory bail, adding that it was undisputed that he was already married when the woman came to him for legal consultation. The State, represented by Government Advocate Hemant Sharma, also strongly opposed the bail plea.

The Court also examined material collected during investigation, including the statement of the Hotel Dewas manager confirming that the applicant had visited the hotel with the prosecutrix on four separate occasions between September and December 2025, alongside statements of the woman's parents and friends who were informed of the marriage proposal.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Nikita Jagganath Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an "extraordinary power" that "cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be the rule," and must be exercised with caution in serious cases where premature protection could hamper investigation.

Weighing all these facts, the Court held that the applicant was "not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail" and dismissed the plea, leaving him exposed to arrest in the case.

Case Title: "S" vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh