The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has granted regular bail to an applicant accused of offences under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising out of an allegation of establishing sexual relations on the false pretext of marriage, while placing reliance on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and giving due weight to the applicant’s prior representation before the police authorities alleging that the complainant had threatened to falsely implicate him. The order was passed by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt on the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR/Crime No. 359/2025 registered at Police Station Panwasa, District Ujjain. The applicant had been in custody since December 11, 2025.
The allegation set out in the FIR was that the applicant had established sexual relations with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage and thereafter resiled from his promise. The complainant had recorded her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, stating that the applicant had physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and subsequently backed out of his commitment. The State counsel opposed the bail application citing the seriousness of the allegations.
The counsel appearing for the applicant placed before the Court several material circumstances in support of the prayer for bail. It was submitted that both the applicant and the complainant are adults, and that their relationship was entirely consensual in nature. The age difference between the two parties was also pointed out, with the applicant being approximately 25 years of age while the complainant is approximately 40 years of age. It was further submitted that the complainant — a widow — had first come in contact with the applicant through Instagram after the death of her husband, and that their relationship continued for a period of four months during which they visited various places together and maintained physical relations. Significantly, it was brought to the Court’s notice that approximately two months prior to the registration of the FIR, the applicant had sent a written communication to the DSP concerned, specifically alleging that the complainant had demanded money from him and threatened to implicate him in a false rape case if her demands were not met. The chargesheet had already been filed in the matter, and no criminal antecedents were reported against the applicant.
The Court, after considering the rival submissions and perusing the case diary, took note of the factual matrix in its entirety. The Court found that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual in nature, that the applicant had proactively placed on record his representation before the DSP alleging extortion and threat of false implication even prior to the registration of the FIR, and that the applicant had been incarcerated for more than four months. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, Cr.A. No. 5001 of 2025 [2025 INSC 1351], and taking into account the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as well as the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court deemed it a fit case for the grant of bail, expressly clarifying that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The Court imposed standard conditions, including that the applicant shall remain present before the concerned court on all dates fixed during trial, shall not influence the proceedings of the trial, shall make himself available as and when required, and shall not involve himself in any criminal activity. It was further directed that in the event of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail, which would stand automatically cancelled upon such breach. The order was declared effective till the end of the trial, subject to the condition that it would become ineffective in case of bail jump or breach of any of the imposed conditions. The applicant was also directed to abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 480(3) of the BNSS, 2023.
Court: Ghanshyam Panchal versus State of Madhya Pradesh | Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 10736 of 2026 | Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:12589 | Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt | Date: May 4, 2026 | Counsel for Applicant: Shri Pankaj Goswami | Counsel for Respondent/State: Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, Govt. Advocate | High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 