Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man in a rape case accusing him of establishing physical relationship with the complainant for a long period of time on the false promise of marriage.

The court, presided over by Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, ruled in favour of the accused/ appellant after finding that the complainant was a married lady of 31 years, who was in a relationship with the accused since one year and had previously filed a case of similar nature against another man.

The appellant was arrested on November 18, 2024, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which provides with ‘sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means,’ and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged on September 13, 2024, the appellant got acquainted with the complaint through Facebook and allegedly had a physical relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage between July 9, 2024, and August 25, 2024.

Senior Advocate Shri Manish Datt, appearing for the accused, argued that the complainant was a married woman entangled in multiple disputes with her husband, including a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The accused highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR, asserting it lacked explanation. It was also pointed out that the complainant had an existing relationship with the appellant that began a year earlier through Facebook. Moreover, the complainant had previously made similar allegations against another individual, which led to his suicide, and charges against her for abetment of suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), were pending. The appellant argued that he had cooperated with the investigation, and no further custodial interrogation was required as the charge sheet had already been filed.

Contrarily, Government Advocate Santosh Yadav argued that the nature of the allegations disqualified the appellant from bail. Furthermore, the Counsel for the Objector/ complainant, Advocate Aman Soni referred to the appellant's alleged criminal antecedents, citing violations under the Essential Commodities Act and the MP Excise Act, and insisted that the appeal be dismissed.

The court, after considering the  complainant's marital status, previous similar allegations, and the evidence presented, concluded : “Having regard to nature of allegation as well as nature of evidence available on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, this appeal is allowed.”

The appellant was directed to appear regularly before the trial court and adhere to the conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court clarified that the bail shall become ineffective if any conditions of bail are breached by the accused.

 

Cause Title: Swapnil Jaiswal v The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [CRA-13510-2024]