The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has clarified that the voluntary registration of marriage, coupled with the absence of immediate protest or alarm by an adult prosecutrix, significantly undermines allegations of kidnapping and non-consensual sexual relations under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This ruling reinforces the principle that consent must be assessed through conduct and context, not merely through post-facto allegations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Raj Singh @ Sagar Singh Sengar, is accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting the prosecutrix, an adult and educated woman, in April 2025. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, along with co-accused, forcibly took her away from her home on 14.04.2025, threatened her, and engaged in sexual intercourse without consent. The FIR was registered on 14.05.2025 after the prosecutrix was found and returned to her family.
Procedural History
The case has undergone multiple bail applications:
- First application: Dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2025 in MCRC No. 33012/2025, with liberty to renew after prosecutrix’s statement
- Second application: Disposed of on 06.01.2026 in MCRC No. 48882/2025, directing the trial court to record the prosecutrix’s statement within two months
- Third application: Filed after the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks release on bail, arguing that the prosecutrix acted voluntarily, entered into a legally registered marriage, and is now under familial pressure to retract her consent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the voluntary registration of marriage, the absence of immediate protest, and the prosecutrix’s conduct during and after the alleged incident can negate the presumption of non-consent under Sections 87 and 64(1) of the BNSS, thereby warranting bail despite the gravity of the charges.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the prosecutrix, being a major and educated woman, willingly accompanied the applicant, engaged in consensual relations, and subsequently entered into a legally recognized marriage before the Registrar in Bhopal. The marriage was solemnized with Hindu rituals at a recognized institution. The counsel emphasized that the FIR was lodged only after family pressure, and the prosecutrix herself had previously expressed a desire to reside with her parents under duress before the Division Bench in WP No. 20126/2025. The counsel relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh to argue that consent must be evaluated through conduct, not mere allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the prosecutrix was taken away by force and threats, and her subsequent marriage was not indicative of consent but a result of coercion. The prosecution cited State of U.P. v. Kailash to argue that marriage following abduction does not absolve the accused of criminal liability, especially when the victim later retracts consent. The State maintained that the gravity of the offences under Sections 87, 64(1), and 351(3) of BNSS warranted continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the prosecutrix’s conduct holistically, rejecting a mechanical application of the offences. It noted that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm during the alleged abduction, did not attempt to escape, and willingly participated in a formal marriage ceremony before a government Registrar. Crucially, the Court observed that during the marriage registration, the prosecutrix did not indicate any unwillingness or coercion before the Registrar, a fact that carries significant evidentiary weight.
"The prosecutrix being a major and educated lady while taking her by the applicant along with co-accused persons, she has not raised any alarm at any point of time, she got married with the applicant which was registered with the office of Registrar, Bhopal, even before the Registrar, the prosecutrix has not been stated that she was not willing to marry with the applicant..."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors or vulnerable persons, emphasizing that adult agency must be respected unless proven otherwise. It held that the prosecution’s case, while prima facie serious, lacked sufficient corroboration to override the indicia of consent evident in the marriage and silence during the critical period. The Court further noted that all material witnesses had been examined, reducing the risk of evidence tampering.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that the voluntary marriage and absence of immediate protest by an adult prosecutrix create reasonable doubt regarding non-consent, warranting bail under Section 483 of the BNSS. The applicant was released on personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to compliance with Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Must Be Assessed Through Conduct, Not Just Allegations
- Practitioners must now rigorously examine the victim’s conduct before, during, and after the alleged incident
- Silence, lack of alarm, and subsequent voluntary acts (e.g., marriage, cohabitation) may rebut presumption of non-consent
- Prosecution cannot rely solely on the nature of the offence; they must prove absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt
Marriage Registration Is a Critical Evidentiary Factor
- A legally registered marriage, especially where the victim affirms willingness before a Registrar, significantly weakens kidnapping and sexual offence charges
- Courts will treat such registrations as strong indicators of consent unless proven otherwise by credible evidence
- Defence counsel should prioritize obtaining certified copies of marriage records as early as possible
Bail Is Not Prejudgment of Merits
- The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case
- Granting bail under Section 483 BNSS does not imply acquittal or acceptance of the defence version
- This reinforces that bail is a procedural safeguard, not a verdict on guilt
