Santosh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pavan Kumar Dwivedi, J

This first application has been filed under Section 482 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.129/2026, registered at Police Station - Gandhwai, District Dhar (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 87, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

As per the case diary, on 30.03.2026, prosecutrix had come from Dhar to her native place to attend the marriage of her elder uncle's daughter. On the same night, at around 11:00 PM, while a DJ was playing, she went alone to the agriculture field to attend to nature's call. While returning, due to darkness, she was using the torch of her mobile phone. At that time, she saw present applicant (Santosh), a resident of her village, who came near her, caught hold of her, and forcibly took her into the field. When she raised alarm, present applicant threatened her not to shout, or else he would kill her, due to which she got frightened. Thereafter, the applicant took her further into the field of Madhav and committed rape upon her. He also threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would kill her and her family members and threatened her with dire consequences. On the next day, as she had examinations, she returned back to Dhar.

On 03.04.2026, when she was going from her hostel to a shop to collect her belongings, the applicant and his brother-in-law Jitendra (co-accused) met her on a motorcycle and co-accused allegedly forcibly snatched her mobile phone. Thereafter, she was made to sit on the motorcycle and taken to a lawyer, where a stamp document was prepared and her signatures were forcibly obtained thereon. She was not aware of the contents of the said document. Thereafter, both of them dropped her back at her hostel on the motorcycle.

After completion of her examinations, on 11.04.2026, she returned at home and narrated the incident to her parents. Due to social stigma, they did not immediately lodge the report at the police station. Her family members made several attempts to persuade the applicant, but he did not relent and continued to threaten her with defamation. The investigation was carried out and her statement under section 183 were recorded where she mention the name of present applicant and co-accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that infact its a case of marriage between the applicant and prosecutrix on their own volition without any coercion on the part of the applicant, the prosecutrix solemnized marriage with the present applicant. She not only solemnized marriage but also went to notary where the stamp regarding solemnization of marriage between the applicant and prosecutrix were executed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant there before the notary, she did not raise any alarm against the incident purportedly happened with her on 30.3.2026. Learned counsel submits that infact the FIR was lodged for an alleged incident on 30.3.2026 on 14.4.2026, only for the reason that by that date the family members of the prosecutrix came to know about the factum of marriage between the applicant and prosecutrix. Thus under the pressure the false FIR has been lodged against the applicant. He submits that the prosecutrix is a student of B.Sc aged around 20 years. Thus she was a major at the time of solemnizing the marriage with the applicant. Therefore on these grounds, it is prayed that applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the bail application on the ground of gravity of alleged offence and submits that the stamps according to the statement given by the prosecutrix were prepared by using force against her and not on her free will. He thus submits that looking to the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

This Court is of the view that looking to the fact that the prosecutrix accompanied the applicant to the notary and according to her own statement, she signed before the notary and while doing so did not raise any alarm against the fact that it was being done under coercion and she remained silent for an alleged incident happened on 30.3.2026 for a long period of about 15 days, in my opinion, the applicant deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application for grant of anticipatory is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also directed that if the applicant is found to be involved in violation of any of the terms of this order, an application for cancellation of his bail may be filed before the Trial Court itself, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.

Accordingly, MCRC stands allowed and disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.