The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape of a 40-year-old government teacher on a false pretext of marriage. The court found that the woman had been in a prolonged relationship with the accused, and held that no prima facie case was made out warranting the denial of bail.
The court, presided over by Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, observed that “Looking to the age of the prosecutrix and period of relationship between the parties, it cannot be said that appellant established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage. Further, as per prosecution story, parties were in relationship with each other since 2012."
The case stemmed from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on November 17, 2024, at Mahila Thana Police Station, Balaghat District.
The woman alleged that the accused had established a physical relationship with her over an extended period—from June 5, 2015, to April 18, 2022—on the false promise of marriage.
The appellant faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The appellant argued that there was a substantial delay of over two years in filing the FIR, which raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s allegations. It was further contended that the prosecutrix’s educational background and long-term relationship with the appellant negated the assertion of a false promise of marriage. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the appellant claimed that the circumstances did not constitute a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, rendering anticipatory bail maintainable.
Opposing the bail plea, the respondents asserted that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail in such cases unless there is clear evidence negating the applicability of the Act. It was further argued that the appellant’s conduct warranted custodial interrogation.
The court made critical observations on the prosecutrix’s claim and the applicability of the SC/ST Act. It noted that while Section 18 generally excludes anticipatory bail, an exception is made when there is no prima facie evidence under the Act. The court observed, “It is correct that normally, application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable for the offence registered under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act. But if prima facie, no case is made out under the SC/ST (PA) Act, then, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable."
The court further found that the prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients for invoking the SC/ST Act against the appellant.
The court also considered the prosecutrix’s education, age, and prolonged relationship with the appellant, underscoring that such factors cast doubt on her assertion that the physical relationship was predicated on a false promise of marriage. Additionally, the significant delay in filing the FIR undermined the prosecutrix’s claim of a false promise of marriage.
Swipe Left For Next Video
Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing the appellant to furnish a personal bond of Rs 30,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount. The appellant was also ordered to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the investigating officer as required, and comply with Section 482(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court clarified that non-compliance with the conditions would result in the automatic cancellation of the bail.
Latest Blogs
English 
Français