The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 24-year-old man accused under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in a case arising from allegations concerning a promise of marriage and a long-term relationship.
Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari passed the order on September 28, 2026, while dealing with the first anticipatory bail application filed by Abhiraj Jogi in connection with Crime No. 628/2026 registered at Police Station Gohalpur, Jabalpur.
Background
According to the prosecution, the applicant and the prosecutrix had known each other for around six years and were allegedly in a live-in relationship. The allegation was that during the relationship, the applicant promised to marry her and, on that basis, established physical relations with her. It was further alleged that he later refused to marry her, following which the FIR was registered.
The applicant denied the allegations and argued that the relationship had been consensual and continued for several years. His counsel submitted that the mere failure of a relationship to result in marriage could not, by itself, establish the offence under Section 69 BNS. The defence also relied on an alleged financial dispute involving ₹1.10 lakh and claimed that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to a demand for repayment.
The State opposed the application, maintaining that the allegations were serious and required investigation. It argued that the parties’ previous acquaintance or alleged live-in relationship did not, by itself, negate the allegations contained in the FIR.
After examining the case diary, the High Court noted that the prosecution had specifically alleged that the promise to marry was made during the relationship and that physical relations followed on the basis of that promise. The Court also noted an allegation that when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the applicant allegedly attempted to terminate the pregnancy and provided her pills purportedly intended for that purpose.
The Court rejected the argument that describing the relationship as consensual was, at this stage, enough to justify anticipatory bail. It observed:
“However, at this stage, the mere assertion that the relationship was consensual cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive of the Applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail.The fact that the prosecutrix may have consented to the physical relationship does not, by itself, imply that such consent conferred an unrestricted or unconditional right upon the applicant to act in any manner whatsoever. The orders relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on their respective facts and do not confer an automatic right to anticipatory bail upon the applicant.”
The High Court held that the allegations, their nature and the disputed defence raised questions requiring investigation and appreciation of evidence. It therefore declined to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the applicant at this stage.
Accordingly, Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari dismissed the applicant’s first application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhiraj Jogi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 45854 of 2026
Judge: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari
Decision Date: September 28, 2026
