Habitual offender with SC/ST Act antecedents denied bail despite plea of consensual relationship and marriage promise.

The appellant challenged an order dated May 22, 2026, issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Chhatarpur, which denied his application for regular bail.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a friend of the victim's late husband, engaged in a long-term sexual relationship with the victim—a widow from a Scheduled Caste—under a false promise of marriage.

When the victim requested marriage, the appellant purportedly used caste-based slurs and threatened her.

Following a complaint on April 23, 2026, the appellant was arrested on May 9, 2026, for offenses involving sexual exploitation and atrocities.

The appellant contended the relationship was consensual and noted a delay in filing the FIR.

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the SC/ST Act, considering the nature of the allegations and the defense of a consensual relationship.

2. Whether the appellant’s criminal history and the specific allegations of caste-based intimidation justify the continued denial of bail.

The court primarily applied Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the bail process and appellate review.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 69 (deceitful promise to marry), 296(b) (obscene acts), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The court noted the precedent from Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes between a breach of promise and a false promise from inception in consensual relationships.

The court evaluated the evidence collected during the investigation, which suggested the appellant exploited the victim sexually over a prolonged period via a false promise of marriage.

It emphasized that the allegations extended beyond sexual acts to include caste-based humiliation and threats, which squarely hit the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

While the appellant cited precedent regarding consensual relationships, the court distinguished those facts by pointing to the appellant's "habitual offender" status.

The record indicated four prior criminal cases against the appellant, three of which were under the SC/ST Act, highlighting a propensity for similar conduct.

The court reasoned that releasing the appellant would pose a risk of witness tampering or further criminal activity.

It held that the severity of the allegations and the appellant's adverse criminal antecedents outweighed the arguments for bail.

Consequently, the High Court upheld the Special Judge's order dated May 22, 2026, and dismissed the criminal appeal.