Anticipatory bail granted considering the prosecutrix’s majority and relationship-related dispute.

The applicants filed their first applications for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 379/2026 registered at Police Station Ashta, District Sehore, for offences under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 75(1)(i) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Doulat Choudhari asserted that he had been in a relationship with the major prosecutrix for approximately two years and that the dispute arose over her alleged demands for money and a separate house.

Subhal Choudhary, Doulat’s father, claimed that he was a farmer residing in village Mugli and had been falsely implicated without any connection to the alleged offence.

The applicants relied on complaints, bank statements and electronic communications, asserted that they had no criminal antecedents, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and comply with bail conditions.

The State opposed the applications, after which the Court heard the parties and perused the case diary.

Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offences alleged in Crime No. 379/2026

Whether, considering the prosecutrix’s majority and age, along with the circumstances presented by the applicants, custodial arrest was necessary or anticipatory bail could be granted subject to statutory conditions

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail where a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence

The Court also imposed the conditions contemplated under Section 482(2), including availability for interrogation, non-interference with the complainant or witnesses, restriction on leaving India without permission, and abstention from committing a similar offence

The alleged offences were considered under Sections 296(b), 351(3), 75(1)(i) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order

The Court considered the prosecution’s opposition, the case diary, and the applicants’ submissions regarding their alleged false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, permanent residence, willingness to cooperate, and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation

The decisive consideration expressly recorded by the Court was that the prosecutrix was a major, aged approximately 32 years

On the basis of the overall facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that anticipatory protection was appropriate, while safeguarding the investigation through conditions requiring cooperation, prohibiting inducement or threats to the complainant and witnesses, and restricting travel and repetition of similar offences

It directed that, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 379/2026 and the stated offences, each applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of ₹25,000 each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or Arresting Authority

The applicants were required to comply with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, including appearing for interrogation when required, refraining from influencing witnesses or the complainant, not leaving India without prior court permission, and not committing a similar offence.