Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Rape Accused Citing Complainant’s Past Allegations and Evidence

Payal Singh

12 months ago

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to a man accused of rape involving false promises of marriage. The court, led by Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal, considered the complainant’s marital issues and past allegations. Doubts over the FIR’s validity and the accused’s cooperation influenced the decision, despite opposition from the government advocate. Bail conditions were imposed.

Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a man accused of rape, where the allegations involved a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage. Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal ruled in favor of the accused after assessing the complainant’s marital status, past similar allegations, and the evidence presented.

The appellant was arrested on November 18, 2024, under:

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for “sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means.”
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The complainant, a 31-year-old married woman, alleged that the appellant established a physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage between July 9, 2024, and August 25, 2024. According to the FIR lodged on September 13, 2024, the two had met on Facebook a year earlier.

Senior Advocate Manish Datt, representing the accused, highlighted several factors:

The complainant was married and involved in disputes with her husband, including a case under Section 125 of the CrPC.
She had previously made similar allegations against another individual, leading to his suicide. She currently faces abetment of suicide charges under Section 306 of the IPC.
The FIR was delayed without explanation, raising doubts about its validity.
The accused had cooperated fully with the investigation, and the charge sheet had been filed, making further custodial interrogation unnecessary.

Government Advocate Santosh Yadav opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the allegations. Advocate Aman Soni, representing the complainant, referred to the accused’s alleged criminal history, including violations under the Essential Commodities Act and the MP Excise Act, urging the court to dismiss the appeal.

The court carefully evaluated the complainant’s marital status, prior allegations, and the available evidence.

“Having regard to nature of allegation as well as nature of evidence available on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, this appeal is allowed,”

noted the court.

The appellant was directed to: