The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of raping a client on the pretext of marriage, punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 341]

The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh observed:

"Having perused the material collected during the investigation, the statement of the Manager of Hotel Dewas dated 27.06.2026, wherein he has stated that the applicant/accused came to his hotel with the prosecutrix on 07.09.2025, 19.10.2025, 02.11.2025, and 25.12.2025, as well as the statements of the parents and friends of the prosecutrix, to whom the proposal for marriage between the prosecutrix and the applicant was communicated, and the contents of FIR bearing Crime No.90/2026, registered at Police Station Kharakuan, District Ujjain (M.P.), along with the proceedings of the applicant recorded before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ujjain, on 07.06.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, MCRC is dismissed"

Per the prosecution's case, the prosecutrix approached the applicant for legal consultation. It was alleged that the applicant proposed marriage to the prosecutrix, representing himself as a single man. Initially, the prosecutrix allegedly did not accept the proposal, but after insistence from the applicant, the prosecutrix claimed she said yes.

Thereafter, the applicant invited the prosecutrix for a date and took her to a hotel wherein a room was booked in his name. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant insisted upon establishing a physical relationship with her. The applicant allegedlt assured her that he would marry her and thereafter established a physical relationship with her. It was alleged that a physical relationship was repeated on subsequent occasions.

Later, when the prosecutrix insisted on marriage, the applicant allegedly stated that his mother was not in good health and would marry the prosecutrix after his mother's health improved.

The prosecutrix later discovered that the applicant was married and had a one-year-old child, and thus, she lodged an FIR against the applicant. The applicant's representation before the Sessions Court was rejected.

The counsel for the applicant argued that the complaint filed by the prosecutrix does not disclose the alleged relationship with the applicant.

The counsel for the prosecutrix claimed that the failure of the relationship between the parties cannot be a ground to condone the alleged acts of the applicant. It was further argued that the complaint specifically mentions the relationship between her and the applicant.

The counsel for the prosecutrix further alleged that the applicant had committed physical assault and attempted to delete their photos from the mobile phone. The applicant also allegedly threatened the prosecutrix.

Referring to the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty v State of Maharashtra [2025], the bench reiterated that the court has to be very cautious while granting anticipatory bail as it could lead to a serious miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent.

The bench examined the statements of the Hotel Manager, where bookings were made, along with statements of parents and friends of the prosecutrix and concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

Case Title: S v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-31612-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 341

For Applicant: Advocate Manish Yadav

For State: Government Advocate Hemant Sharma

For Objector (prosecutrix): Advocate Sanjay Kumar Chouhan

Click here to read/download the Order