MP High Court Grants Bail In Rape Case, Notes Prosecutrix Admitted Love Relationship With Accused

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused in a rape case after taking note of the prosecutrix's testimony regarding her relationship with him, the negative findings in the forensic report, and the period already spent by the accused in custody.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani passed the order while allowing the first bail application filed by applicant Chhabilal Uaike in connection with Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Roopjhar Police Station in Balaghat district. The applicant is facing charges under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3), and 332 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 376, 506 and 449 of IPC) as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act.

Appearing for the applicant, advocate D.S. Parihar argued that Uaike had been in judicial custody since March 11, 2025, and that the prosecution case contained several weaknesses which justified his release on bail pending trial.

The defence submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in the matter was negative and, as a result, no DNA examination had been conducted by the prosecution. It was also pointed out that the prosecutrix and her father had already been examined before the trial court as prosecution witnesses.

According to the submissions recorded in the order, while the prosecutrix supported the prosecution's case during her examination-in-chief, she admitted during cross-examination that she had been in a love relationship with the applicant. The defence further highlighted that certain photographs were available in the case diary, but the face of the woman appearing in those photographs was not identifiable.

The applicant's counsel also relied upon a statement made by the prosecutrix during her testimony. Referring to paragraph seven of her deposition, the defence argued that she had admitted that the applicant had not forcibly entered her house. On the basis of these circumstances, the defence contended that the material available on record disclosed significant infirmities in the prosecution case and that the applicant had a strong case on merits.

Parihar further submitted that the accused was willing to comply with any condition imposed by the Court and sought his release on bail in view of the prolonged period of incarceration already undergone.

The plea was opposed by the State. Panel Lawyer D.K. Shukla appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and urged the Court to reject the bail application.

After hearing both sides and examining the case diary, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. While clarifying that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court observed that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted grant of bail.

The Court stated, "Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail."

Allowing the application, the High Court directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial or committal court.

The Court also imposed several conditions. It directed the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and trial, refrain from influencing witnesses, avoid committing any similar offence, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The applicant was further directed not to leave India without prior permission from the competent court or investigating officer. The Court clarified that violation of any of the conditions would automatically render the bail order ineffective.

A copy of the order has been directed to be sent to the concerned trial court for compliance.

Case Title: Chhabilal Uaike v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani