Bail granted in alleged religious conversion case involving consensual physical relations based on a promise of marriage.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following his arrest on February 2, 2026.

The complainant (21 years old) alleged that the applicant entered a romantic relationship with her under a promise of marriage and had physical relations on multiple occasions between November 2025 and February 2026.

She further alleged that when she requested marriage, the applicant pressured her to convert to his religion.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were leveled only after the relationship failed due to religious differences.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the allegations of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage and forced religious conversion under the BNS and M.P. Dharmik Swatantrata Act.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant is necessary given the stage of investigation and his personal history.

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (power of High Court/Sessions Court to grant bail).

The substantive charges were examined under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 3/5 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharmik Swatantrata Act (prohibition of unlawful conversion).

The court also considered procedural compliance regarding the recording of statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS.

The guidelines for speedy trial under Section 346 of the BNSS.

The Court observed that the applicant and the victim were both young adults (approx. 21 years old) engaged in a communicative relationship.

It noted that the investigation was almost complete, further custodial interrogation was unnecessary, and the trial was expected to take time.

The Court found prima facie merit in the applicant's contention that the relationship was romantic and consensual.

The Court highlighted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had family roots, and there was no evidence suggesting a likelihood of him fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or repeating the offence.

The "gravity of the offence" cited by the State was weighed against the lack of compelling reasons for continued incarceration of a young individual during the trial.

The Court held that while the merits of the case would be decided at trial, the current circumstances did not justify continued detention.

The relief was granted subject to conditions: the applicant must attend all court hearings, refrain from committing similar offences, and must not induce or threaten witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless breached.