Sonu Malviya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1] They are heard. Perused the case diary / challan papers.

2] This is the first bail application filed by applicant under Section 483 BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023/ section 439 of Cr.P.C. as he is implicated in connection with Crime No.78/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Indore (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 69, 296-B, 115(2) 351(3) ,351(2) of the BNS Act. The applicant is in custody since 08/03/2026.

3] Allegation against the applicant is of the commission of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage and also of assault.

4] Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecutrix and the applicant have already solemnised marriage, the affidavit regarding which is also filed on record.

5] Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the photographs of the prosecutrix and the applicant exchanging garlands on each other's necks. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has stated that she is relinquishing her muslim religion and is adopting the Hindu religion and is marrying the applicant, thus it is submitted that the complaint of commission of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage would not arise. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged on 6/3/2026, whereas initial date of the incident is stated to be from 21.7.2020 to 3.11.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has been lodged in jail since 08/03/2026 and the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, the application be allowed.

6] Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer.

7] Counsel for the objector has vehemently opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that no case for the grant of bail is made out as there is no formal marriage between the parties, and the prosecutrix also came to know that the applicant was earlier in a relationship with some other girl. Documents regarding which are also filed on record. Thus, it cannot be said to be a case where the applicant had entered into a relationship with the prosecutrix with an honest intention. It is also submitted that the applicant had obtained around Rs.1,50,000/- from the prosecutrix, and thus, had also committed fraud with the complainant.

8] In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has submitted that the photographs of the applicant with the other girl are in respect of his earlier relationship.

9] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary, as also the documents filed by the complainant on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, when the applicant had also similar relationship with other girl and the fact that he had also obtained Rs.1,50,000/ from the complainant, in such circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this juncture. Accordingly, the MCRC stands dismissed. However, the applicant can renew his prayer after the prosecutrix is examined in the trial Court.

10] Counsel for the objector is also directed to ensure that the prosecutrix appears in the trial Court on the date fixed for recording of her deposition.

11] Accordingly, the MCRC stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.