Aayush Dixit vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is the first application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.54 of 2026 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant/victim, daughter of late Mohan Singh Chauhan, aged about 24 years, resident of Mahavir Nagar, Indore, presently residing at Shubhanjali Puram, Gwalior, submitted a handwritten complaint at Police Station Maharajpura, Gwalior on 24.01.2026 alleging that she has been working with Air Indigo, Gwalior since November 2024, while the accused Ayush Dixit is employed with Air India Airlines, Gwalior. The prosecutrix and the accused were known to each other since their time in Bhopal. Owing to professional interaction, they developed acquaintance, which later turned into a relationship. The accused induced the prosecutrix by assuring her that he intended to marry her. Relying upon this promise of marriage, the prosecutrix consented to physical relations with the accused. On 11.04.2025, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix at Shubhanjali Puram at around 6:00 PM, reiterated his intention to marry her, stayed at her house, and established physical relations with her. Subsequently, on 31.10.2025, when the prosecutrix asked the accused to solemnize the marriage, the accused flatly refused, picked up an argument, and clearly stated that he would not marry her under any circumstances. Further, the accused threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences and stated that if she raised the issue of marriage again, he would kill her. On the basis of such allegations, alleged crime was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a personal relationship turning sour. It is further submitted that even if the entire prosecution story and the statement of the prosecutrix are taken at their face value, no offence as alleged is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that as per the own version of the prosecutrix, she has admitted that she knew the applicant since January 2024, and both were working together. They were voluntarily in a relationship, used to go out together, and were mutually consenting adults. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that physical relations were established between them in April 2025 and even thereafter everything remained normal. This clearly demonstrates that the relationship was consensual and continued for a considerable period without any complaint or objection. It is further submitted that the alleged physical relationship was not the result of any deception or coercion but arose out of mutual affection and consent between two major individuals. Mere discussions regarding marriage or a future possibility of marriage cannot be construed as a false promise of marriage, particularly when there is no allegation that the applicant had dishonest intention from the very inception of the relationship. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix herself admits that when she insisted on marriage, the applicant asked her to speak to his family, which clearly negates the allegation of any fraudulent intention. At the most, the present case reflects a breach of promise or a relationship dispute, which is purely civil and personal in nature and does not attract criminal liability under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is further submitted that the refusal to marry, even if assumed to be true, occurred much later in October 2025, i.e., several months after the physical relationship was established, which again shows that the consent was not obtained by deception at the initial stage. The law is well settled that consensual physical relations between adults, followed by a subsequent refusal to marry, does not ipso facto constitute an offence. It is also submitted that the applicant is a young working professional employed with a reputed airline, having a fixed place of residence and no criminal antecedents. He is not a flight risk and undertakes to cooperate with the investigation in all respects. There is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, especially when the entire case is based on documentary and admitted facts. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is sought.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Considering the overall facts and cirrcumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parites, as well as the fact that the material placed on record does not disclose the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

vi) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;

v) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.