The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has granted regular bail to a doctor accused of offences including rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage, observing that no such offence is made out as the complainant woman had entered into the consensual relationship and performed a ‘Nikahnama’ while concealing the fact of her own pre-existing marriage.
The order was passed by Justice Sandeep Natvarlal Bhatt on November 13, 2025, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 48912 of 2025. The applicant had filed his first application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking regular bail.
Background of the Case
The applicant was arrested on October 7, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 698/2025 registered at Police Station Hanumantal, District Jabalpur. The offences registered against him were under Sections 69, 296, and 115(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Submissions of the Parties
Appearing for the applicant, Senior Advocate Shri Manish Datt, along with Shri Sajid Nawab Khan, submitted that the applicant is a 39-year-old practising doctor and the prosecutrix is a 35-year-old married lady.
The applicant’s counsel argued that while it is alleged that the applicant developed a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage, the victim “herself is a married lady and by suppresing this fact, she herself performed Nikahnama on 09/07/2024 with the applicant.”
It was submitted that the prosecutrix had married another man in 2008 and has three children with him. Eight years into her marriage, she met the applicant and “developed physical relationship with the applicant with her consent.” The counsel stated that the victim was unhappy with her previous husband and had filed a divorce petition. However, when her divorce petition was rejected by the Family Court, Jabalpur, on July 26, 2025, “she has lodged false FIR against the applicant.”
Opposing the bail application, Shri Y.D. Yadav, Government Advocate for the State, and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and Shri Abdul Kadeer, advocates for the complainant/objector, contended that “on the pretext of false promise of marriage, applicant developed physical relationship with the victim.” They further alleged that the applicant “now forced the victim for compromising the matter” and was therefore not entitled to bail.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, Justice Bhatt noted that the facts from the case-diary and documents confirmed the victim’s existing marriage.
“From the perusal of the case-diary and documents available on record, it transpires that the victim is already a married lady having three children and she was not happy with her previous husband, therefore, she has filed divorce petiton before the Family Court, Jabalpur and vide order dated 26/07/2025, when the divorce petiton filed by her against her previous husband got rejected, she has lodged false FIR against the applicant,” the Court observed.
The High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608.
In its “considered opinion,” the Court found that the victim, despite her marriage in 2008 and having three children, concealed this fact and “enteres into consensual relationship with the applicant and performed Nikahnama with him on 09/07/2024.”
Based on this, the Court held, “therefore, no offence for committed rape with the victim on pretext of false promise of marriage is made out against the applicant.”
The Court reiterated this finding in its conclusion, stating that the prosecutrix, “by consealing the fact that she is already married to [another man], developed physical relationship with the applicant with her consent and when her divorce petiton filed before the Family Court, Jabalpur got rejected… she has lodged false FIR against the present applicant.”
In light of the Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) judgment, the Court concluded, “no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.”
Decision
Finding itself “inclined to grant bail to the applicant,” the Court allowed the application, “without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.”
The applicant was directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant was further directed to comply with the provisions of Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
