Hitesh @ Hani Totlani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
1 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15907 of 2026
HITESH @ HANI TOTLANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Rathi – Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Hemant Sharma – Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vivek Singh – learned Senior Advocate with Shri Gurudev
Prasad Gupta – Advocate for the respondent No.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12.08.2026
Pronounced on : 31.08.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This application is preferred under section 528 of BNSS, 2023
being aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2026 by First Additional
Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore (Annexure P/1) in ST
No.70/2025 arising out of crime no.101/2025 registered at police
station Manpur, Indore (Urban) under section 69 and 351(3) of BNS,
2023 seeking the following relief:-
(1) That the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the
learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mhow,
District Indore in ST No.70/2025 may kindly be quashed
(2) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit may
kindly be provided to the petitioner.
2. Facts giving rise to the occasion for filing this petition are that
crime no.70/2025 was registered at police station Manpur, Indore
against the petitioner under section 69 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
2 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
the complaint of respondent No.2/prosecutrix that she got friendly
with Hitesh Totlani. Hitesh proposed to marry her. Hitesh took her-to
Manpur in his car on 15/9/2024 and had physical relationship with her
on promise of marriage. Thereafter, on multiple occasions Hitesh had
physical relationship with her promising to marry her soon. Hitesh
provided her a room at Kishanganj. However, he left without
informing her on 16/3/2025 and later declined to marry her. On such
allegations P.S. Manpur registered FIR for Crime No.101/2025 for the
offence punishable under Section 69 and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 against
Hitesh @ Honey. The statements of prosecutrix were recorded under
Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, 2023. The statements of other
witnesses have also been recorded. During investigation Shikha
Raghuvanshi also alleged that Hitesh is in relationship for last seven
years with her. She had informed the prosecutrix about their
relationship on 15/4/2025.
3. Present petitioner approached the trial court for anticipatory bail
and vide order dated 09.04.2025 in B.A. No.103/2025, Second
Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore rejected the
application for anticipatory bail under section 482 of BNSS, 2023.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court through MCRC
No.17762/2025 and vide order dated 16.05.2025, Coordinate Bench
of this court rejected the application for anticipatory bail preferred
under section 482 of BNSS, 2023 recording the finding which are
being reproduced as below:-
“Allegedly, the applicant sexually exploited the complainant on
promise of marriage. The material on-record reveals the conduct of
the applicant and his criminal antecedents. Applicant has not been
available since registration of FIR on 17/3/2025. He is absconding
from investigation therefore, the possibility of fleeing’ from justice
cannot be ruled out. Considering the vulnerability of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
3 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
complainant and status of applicant, the possibility of influencing the
witness cannot be ruled out. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the rare relief of anticipatory bail cannot be extended to the
applicant in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Pradeep Sharma V/s. State of MP reported as (2014) 2 SCC 171.
Consequently, the bail application (MCRC No. 17762 of 2025)
stands dismissed.”
4. Thereafter, petitioner approached the hon’ble Apex Court
through Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.9457/2025 challenging the
order dated 16.05.2025 in MCRC No.17762/2025 passed by this court
and vide order dated 18.07.2025, petitioner herein was directed to
implead the victim/complainant (respondent No.2 herein) as
respondent and the notices were issued to the respondent and in the
meanwhile, interim relief was granted in the following terms:
“In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer in connection with Crime No.101/2025, registered
at Police Station Manpur, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh.”
5. The police station Manpur, Indore submitted the final report
cum chargesheet before the JMFC, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore on
25.09.2025 and the case was registered as RCT No.1128/2025 and
petitioner herein preferred an application for bail before the JMFC,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore and JMFC, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore
ordered to release the petitioner on bail.
6. The case was committed to Sessions Court and was registered
as ST No.70/2025 before First Additional Sessions Judge, Dr.
Ambedkar Nagar, Indore. The respondent No.2
(herein)/victim/prosecutrix preferred an application before First
Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore on the
ground that SLP (Cri.) No.9457/2025 has been dismissed vide order
dated 28.10.2025 and trial court issued a warrant of arrest against the
present petitioner vide order dated 03.11.2025. Thereafter, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
4 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
petitioner approached the trial court for cancellation of order of
warrant of arrest under section 72(2) of BNSS, 2023 and vide order
dated 10.11.2025, application preferred under section 72(2) of BNSS,
2023 was rejected.
7. The present petitioner approached this court through MCRC
No.53618/2025 by filing the petition under section 528 of the BNSS,
2023 and vide order dated 03.12.2025, the matter was remanded back
to the trial court for its hearing on the application filed by the
prosecutrix on 21.10.2025. Trial court provided the opportunity of
hearing to both the parties and vide order dated 02.04.2026 in ST
No.70/2025, trial court allowed the application of respondent No.2/
victim/ prosecutrix and ordered to issue warrant of arrest against
present petitioner. Order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the trial court is
the subject matter of challenge through this petition and vide order
dated 09.04.2026, this court ordered to issue notice to respondent
No.2 through trial court and further directed that till the next date of
hearing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
8. Vide order dated 26.08.2025 in SLP (Cri.) No.9457/2025, the
interim relief was continued till the next date of hearing by observing
as follows:-
“When the matter was argued today it is submitted that the
petitioner is ready to marry the prosecutrix. On the other hand the
prosecutrix, who is present before this Court submits that she is
already married to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner wants the
marriage to be performed again, she is ready for that.”
9. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.10.2025, SLP (Cri.)
No.9457/2025 was dismissed by the Apex Court. For ready reference,
order dated 28.10.2025 is being reproduced as below:-
“After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we do not
find any case is made out for interference with the impugned order.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
5 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
Pending applications shall also stand disposed of.”
10. The petitioner has approached this court on the ground that
regular bail had already been granted to him by the learned JMFC
after filing of charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the learned trial
court failed to appreciate that the interim protection granted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 and the
subsequent regular bail granted after filing of charge-sheet operated in
different fields, and the later dismissal of the SLP vide order dated
28.10.2025 did not automatically nullify or extinguish the separate
judicial order of regular bail already granted to the petitioner.
11. It is further contended that the learned Court below further
failed to appreciate that the cancellation application did not disclose
any post-bail misuse of liberty, any breach of condition, any
intimidation, any inducement, any threat to witnesses, any tampering
with evidence, any abscondence, or any other supervening
circumstance after grant of bail, and in absence of such foundational
pleadings, the impugned order could not have been passed. It is
submitted that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous
assumption that the regular bail granted after filing of charge-sheet
was without authority and liable to be ignored, whereas the question
before the learned Court below in cancellation proceedings was
whether there existed legal grounds for cancellation of bail, and not
whether the petitioner could be deprived of liberty merely because the
earlier anticipatory bail proceedings had ended against him.
12. It is further submitted that they relied on Ram Bharoshi and
Others v. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2004 SCC OnLine All
642 and Sushant Chandana v. State & Anr. decided on 07.12.2011 in
Crl. M.C. No. 3153/2011 by Delhi High Court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
6 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
13. Counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition by filing the
detailed reply through I.A. No.9703/2026 supported with the affidavit
of the respondent No.2/victim/prosecutrix and documents (Ex.P/1 to
Ex.P/11).
14. In counter reply, counsel for the petitioner referred documents
(Ex.P/1 to P/3) alongwith reply of I.A. No.9703/2026 and they also
filed the copy of I.A. No.269895/2025 dated 18.10.2025 filed in SLP
(Crl.) No.9457/2025. I.A. No.269895/2025 is the application seeking
permission to file additional documents on record alongwith affidavit
and the copy of list of antecedent of the father of complainant,
medical record of the father of the petitioner and documents reflecting
the residential status of the brother of the petitioner.
Heard and perused the record .
15. Perusal of the aforesaid orders reveals that two questions arises
for consideration. Firstly, whether, after dismissal of SLP (Cri.) No.
9457/2025, challenging the order dated 16.05.2025 passed in MCRC
No. 17762/2025 by this Court, the petitioner can claim protection
under the interim order passed by the Apex Court. Secondly, whether
the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the JMFC, Dr. Ambedkar
Nagar, Indore, was an order granting bail to the petitioner and,
consequently, whether the Trial Court committed an error in issuing
the warrant of arrest.
16. Perusal of the detailed chronology of events reveals that, after
dismissal of SLP (Cri.) No. 9457/2025 by the Apex Court vide order
dated 28.10.2025, the petitioner cannot claim any protection on the
strength of interim protection. Accordingly, the first question is
answered against the petitioner.
Now come to the second question.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND: 24365
7 MCRC. No. 15907 of 2026
17. The order passed by the JMFC, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore,
was nothing but an order giving effect to the interim protection
granted to the petitioner. Once the interim protection ceased to operate
upon dismissal of SLP (Cri.) No. 9457/2025, the effect of the order
passed by the JMFC, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Indore, also came to an
end. Consequently, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dr. Ambedkar
Nagar, Indore, was justified in issuing the warrant of arrest against the
petitioner.
18. The petitioner cannot be granted any relief which has already
been denied by this Court, particularly when the challenge to the order
passed by this Court has also failed before the Apex Court. Hence, no
case for interference is made out.
19. With the aforesaid, this MCRC stands dismissed .
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
Vatan
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 01-09-2026
18:32:13