The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the foundational principle that bail is the rule and incarceration the exception, even in cases involving alleged sexual misconduct under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In granting regular bail to an accused charged with deceitful sexual intercourse, the Court emphasized procedural fairness, the presumption of innocence, and the right to liberty under Article 21, without prejudging the merits of the case.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Amarjeet Singh Deol, aged 30, is accused in FIR No. 906/2025 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 69, 296(B), 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The complainant, a 31-year-old woman with an M.B.A. degree and employed as an Aanganwadi worker, alleges that the applicant, who holds an M.Pharma degree, engaged in a romantic relationship through the matrimonial website Shadi.com, made a false promise to marry her, and had sexual intercourse with her under that deceitful representation. She further alleges that he later threatened her with physical harm and uttered obscene words in public.
Key Facts
- The applicant and complainant met through Shadi.com in late 2024.
- Both parties are educated, unmarried adults with professional qualifications.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record.
- He is engaged in a legal business in Jabalpur.
- The medical report submitted in the case records "no definite opinion" regarding the alleged sexual act.
- The charge sheet was filed on 15.01.2026.
- The applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.12.2025.
- His first bail application, filed as M.Cr.C. No. 2177/2026, was withdrawn on 03.02.2026.
- The complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNS was recorded but no forensic or corroborative evidence was cited to conclusively establish non-consent or deceit.
Procedural History
- 26.12.2025: Applicant arrested and taken into custody.
- 15.01.2026: Charge sheet filed by police.
- 03.02.2026: First bail application (M.Cr.C. No. 2177/2026) withdrawn.
- 12.03.2026: Second bail application filed under Section 483 BNS.
- 12.03.2026: Hearing conducted before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on grounds of no criminal antecedents, completion of investigation, ongoing trial, and the principle that detention should not be the norm pending trial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the gravity of offences under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - sexual intercourse by deceitful promise of marriage - justifies denial of bail when the investigation is complete, the accused has no prior record, and the trial is expected to take considerable time.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that:
- The applicant is a first-time offender with no criminal history.
- The medical report does not confirm the alleged act.
- The charge sheet is filed, indicating investigation is complete.
- The applicant is employed and has strong local ties, ensuring his presence during trial.
- The principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" under Article 21 of the Constitution must prevail.
- The allegations, even if true, do not involve physical violence or coercion, and the complainant is a consenting adult.
- Denial of bail would amount to punitive detention before conviction.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel contended that:
- The offence under Section 69 BNS is serious as it involves exploitation under the guise of marriage.
- The complainant’s statement under Section 183 BNS provides a prima facie case.
- Such offences erode trust in social institutions and require deterrence.
- The court should exercise caution in granting bail where the accused is charged with deceitful sexual relations.
- The seriousness of the offence outweighs the applicant’s personal circumstances.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the charges and the procedural posture of the case. It noted that while Section 69 BNS carries a maximum punishment of ten years, the offence does not involve physical force or rape as defined under the BNS. The Court emphasized that the complainant is a consenting adult and the relationship was initiated voluntarily through a matrimonial platform. The absence of conclusive medical evidence and the lack of any prior criminal antecedents were critical factors.
"Considering the fact that the applicant as well as complainant both are major persons and also well educated and the also considering the fact that the trial will take its own time to conclude and considering the principle 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but without expressing any view on the merits of the case..."
The Court explicitly declined to evaluate the truth of the allegations, stating that bail decisions must not pre-judge guilt. It held that the completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet significantly reduce the risk of evidence tampering. The applicant’s stable employment and local residence further diminished flight risk. The Court also referenced the constitutional imperative under Article 21 that liberty cannot be curtailed merely due to the seriousness of allegations without a balancing of procedural safeguards.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court granted regular bail on the following conditions: a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount; no influence on trial proceedings; mandatory availability for all court dates; submission of permanent address and contact details; deposit of passport or affidavit within seven days; no interference with investigation; no further criminal activity; and compliance with all conditions under Section 480(3) BNS. The bail order remains effective until the conclusion of trial and is automatically cancelled upon breach.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cannot Be Denied Solely on the Nature of the Allegation
- Practitioners must argue that Section 69 BNS cases, while serious, do not automatically disqualify an accused from bail.
- The absence of physical violence, forensic corroboration, or prior criminal history must be highlighted.
- Courts must distinguish between allegations of deceit and those involving coercion or force.
Completion of Investigation Shifts the Balance Toward Liberty
- Once the charge sheet is filed, the risk of evidence tampering diminishes significantly.
- Detention beyond this stage must be justified by specific, concrete risks - not general concerns about the offence.
- Courts should not treat all sexual misconduct cases as inherently dangerous to public order.
Conditions Can Mitigate Risk Without Detention
- The Court’s imposition of strict, enforceable conditions (passport deposit, affidavit, contact details) demonstrates that liberty can be preserved without compromising trial integrity.
- Practitioners should propose tailored conditions in bail applications to address prosecution concerns without resorting to custody.
- Failure to comply with bail conditions will trigger automatic cancellation - this provides a clear deterrent without pre-trial detention.
