Anticipatory bail denied where prima facie evidence indicates deception, repeated sexual relations, and threats.

The applicant, an advocate practising before the District Court, Ujjain, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 191/2026 registered at Police Station Najhiri, Ujjain, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecutrix allegedly approached the applicant for legal consultation. The applicant allegedly proposed marriage, represented that he was unmarried, and, after obtaining her consent on the assurance of marriage, established physical relations with her at a hotel on 7 September 2025 and on subsequent occasions. He later allegedly refused to marry her, whereupon she discovered that he was already married and had a one-year-old child.

The applicant’s anticipatory-bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, Ujjain, on 25 June 2026.

During investigation, the hotel manager stated that the applicant had visited the hotel with the prosecutrix on four occasions, and the statements of her parents and friends indicated that the proposed marriage had been communicated to them.

Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

Whether the material collected during investigation, including the hotel manager’s statement, statements of the prosecutrix’s relatives and friends, and the related FIR and proceedings, disclosed sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail, and considered the allegation under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It relied on Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, which reiterated that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and should not ordinarily be granted as a matter of routine.

The Court also relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282, holding that anticipatory bail involves cautious and judicious discretion, particularly because protection from arrest in serious cases may hamper investigation, facilitate tampering with evidence, or otherwise lead to miscarriage of justice; interim or final protection should therefore be granted only in eminently fit cases.

The Court found that the investigation contained material corroborating the prosecutrix’s allegations. The hotel manager’s statement placed the applicant and prosecutrix together at the hotel on four dates, while statements of her parents and friends indicated that the applicant had communicated a proposal of marriage.

The Court also considered the contents of FIR Crime No. 90/2026 and the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which allegedly reflected the relationship, threats, and the applicant’s conduct towards the prosecutrix.

In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s alleged misrepresentation regarding his marital status, his professional position, and the possibility that anticipatory protection could affect the investigation, the Court held that this was not an “eminently fit” case for the exceptional relief of anticipatory bail.

The material collected during investigation provided prima facie corroboration of the prosecutrix’s allegations and justified declining the exceptional protection sought under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No. 31612 of 2026 was dismissed.