Deepak Mandrele vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J

This first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2026 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Crime No. 38/2026), registered at Police Station Khairlanji, District Balaghat (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 69, 296(b), 351(3) of BNS, 2023.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that prosecutrix has earlier lodged a report against Indra Kumar Lilhare alleging similar type of offence registered vide Crime No. 43/2021, P.S. Mahila Thana, Balaghat and regarding this crime number in S.T. No. 15/2022 Indra Kumar Lilhare has been acquitted by the Second Upper Sessions Judge, Balaghat vide judgment dated 9/11/2024. It is further submitted that prosecutrix was already married and in this regard marriage card and certificate of the gram panchayat Gurudghat, Janpad Panchayat Khairlanji District Balaghat are on record. It is further submitted that although applicant was in relations with the prosecutrix on the point that both will marry but at that time applicant had no knowledge that prosecutrix was already married. Prosecutrix has stated to applicant that she is unmarried therefore, applicant was ready to marry her and when he came to know this fact that she was already married, family members of the applicant did not agree for their marriage with each other and due to this reason, false report has been lodged. It is submitted that offence u/s 69 of BNS, 2023 is not made out against the applicant. He has placed reliance on Ansaar Mohammad Vs. The State of Rajasthan and another, Criminal Appeal No. 962/2022 (SLP (Crl.) No. 5326/2022, Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 293 and Devendra Chourasiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C. No. 23.09.2024. There is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant. In these circumstance, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the victim as well as counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant is arrested by the police then he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Authority.

Applicant shall abide by the following conditions under Section 480 (2) of BNSS:-

(a) Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(b) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to complainant or witnesses;

(c) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(d) He shall not commit similar offence, of which, he is accused or suspected.

(e) He will further abide by the condition enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 480 of the BNSS. Certified copy as per rules.