Consent Alone Cannot Decide Anticipatory Bail In False Promise Of Marriage Case: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old man accused of having physical relations with a woman on a false promise of marriage, observing that a claim of consensual relationship cannot, by itself, decide his entitlement to protection from arrest.

Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari dismissed the first anticipatory bail plea filed by Abhiraj Jogi under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 438 of CrPC). The application arose from Crime No. 628/2026, registered at Police Station Gohalpur, Jabalpur, for the offence of sexual intercourse by deceitful means, punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

As per the prosecution, the complainant and the applicant had known each other for about six years and were allegedly in a live-in relationship. It is alleged that he promised to marry her and, on that assurance, established physical relations with her. When he later refused to marry her, the FIR was registered.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Shiv Kumar Kashyap argued that his client had been falsely implicated and that the ingredients of Section 69 were not made out. He submitted that the relationship was consensual and had continued for several years, and that its failure to end in marriage could not, by itself, amount to an offence.

The defence also called the FIR a "counterblast and an afterthought". According to the applicant, he had lent Rs 1,10,000 to the complainant for her financial needs. When he demanded repayment, she allegedly lodged the case to avoid returning the money and to pressure him. It was further argued that the alleged incident had no proper territorial link with Police Station Gohalpur.

Describing his client as a young man with clean antecedents, counsel said there was no risk of him fleeing, tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. The applicant, it was said, was ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any condition imposed by the Court. Arrest would harm his liberty. He also relied on two earlier orders of coordinate benches, dated 27 February 2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 8420/2026 and 22 April 2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 17649/2026.

Opposing the plea, Panel Lawyer Somesh Gupta appearing for the State submitted that the allegations were serious and needed proper investigation. He argued that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, along with material gathered during the probe, had to be examined in accordance with law. Knowing each other for a long time, or even being in a live-in relationship, he said, did not by itself negate the allegations in the FIR.

After hearing both sides and perusing the case diary, the Court noted that the allegation of a marriage promise leading to physical relations was specifically made. It also noted that, as per the case diary, when the complainant became pregnant, the applicant "allegedly attempted to terminate her pregnancy and provided her pills purportedly intended for termination of the pregnancy".

Turning to the defence of consent, the Court said that at this stage, "the mere assertion that the relationship was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail".

On the nature of consent, the Court said the fact that the complainant "may have consented to the physical relationship does not, by itself, imply that such consent conferred an unrestricted or unconditional right upon the applicant to act in any manner whatsoever".

The Court held that the earlier orders cited by the defence were "distinguishable on their respective facts" and did not give the applicant an automatic right to anticipatory bail.

Considering the specific allegations in the FIR, the nature of the accusation and the fact that the defence involved "disputed questions which require investigation and appreciation of evidence", the Court declined to grant relief. It held that it was "not inclined to extend the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the Applicant at this stage".

The application was dismissed.

Case Title: Abhiraj Jogi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Order Date: September 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari