MP High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Man Accused Of Assaulting Wife Over ₹5 Lakh Demand

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Bhopal man accused of physically assaulting his wife in connection with a demand for ₹5 lakh and attempting to subject her to unnatural sexual acts, observing that the allegations against him were serious in nature and did not warrant the grant of pre-arrest protection.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani passed the order while dismissing the first anticipatory bail application filed by John @ Chirag Mishra under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

The case arises out of Crime No. 126/2026 registered at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 115(2), 119(2), 351(2) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 323, 329, 506 and 498-A, IPC) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Aryan Shukla argued that Mishra had been falsely implicated and was innocent. It was submitted that he was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions that the Court might impose. The defence contended that although the alleged incident took place on March 2, 2026, the First Information Report was lodged only on March 5, 2026, and no satisfactory explanation had been offered by the prosecution for the delay.

The applicant further argued that the prosecution case was not supported by cogent material and that there were no allegations of extortion against him. Counsel also submitted that the injuries allegedly suffered by the complainant were simple in nature and, therefore, custodial protection through anticipatory bail ought to be granted.

The plea was strongly opposed by the State as well as the complainant. Panel Lawyer S.M. Patel appeared for the State, while Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari represented the objector.

Opposing the application, the prosecution and the complainant's counsel argued that the allegations were grave. They submitted that the applicant had allegedly assaulted the complainant in furtherance of a demand for ₹5 lakh and had also attempted to engage in unnatural sexual acts with her. It was further pointed out that the complainant had sustained multiple injuries, as reflected in the medical records collected during the investigation.

The State also highlighted that one of the offences invoked against the applicant, Section 119(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 329, IPC), carries the punishment of life imprisonment. According to the prosecution, the case was supported by sufficient material and evidence, leaving no grounds for extending the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

After hearing the parties and examining the case diary, FIR, medical report and other material available on record, the Court found merit in the objections raised by the prosecution.

Justice Vani observed that the allegations disclosed that the applicant had allegedly caused injuries to the complainant in connection with a demand for ₹5 lakh and had also attempted to commit unnatural sexual acts. Taking note of the seriousness of the accusations, the nature of the allegations, the punishment prescribed and the evidence collected during the investigation, the Court concluded that the matter was not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

In its order, the Court observed, “This Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature.” The Court further noted, “Considering the gravity and nature of the accusations, the severity of punishment and the material collected during investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, leaving the applicant to pursue remedies available under law as the investigation proceeds.

Case Title: John @ Chirag Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: June 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani