Madhya Pradesh HC: Prolonged Custody And Delayed Testimony Grounds For Bail In False Promise Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the principle that indefinite detention during trial cannot be sustained where the prosecutrix fails to record her testimony despite entering an appearance. This ruling provides critical relief to a government officer facing charges of sexual exploitation under the guise of marriage, emphasizing that procedural delays can constitute fresh grounds for bail even after previous dismissals on merits.

Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, presiding at the Gwalior Bench, adjudicated upon the fifth bail application filed by the applicant. The Court balanced the gravity of the allegations against the applicant’s prolonged incarceration since June 2026 and the sluggish progress of the trial.

Court's Observations on Custody and Conduct

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody for several months and that the investigation had culminated in a charge-sheet. Despite the earlier applications being dismissed on merits, the bench found that the current stage of the trial where the prosecutrix had filed her vakalatnama but refrained from testifying merited a reconsidered approach to the applicant's custody.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the prosecutrix has not appeared before the trial Court for recording her statement and the period of custody, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed."

The Court has the following directions:

"i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him/her;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation /trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself /herself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such acts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant will not commit any other offence or will not repeat the offence in future. In case offence of same nature is repeated, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be."

Background

The prosecution alleged that the applicant befriended the complainant on Facebook and subsequently committed rape on the pretext of a marriage promise. The crime was registered under Sections 69, 351(1), 351(2), and 225 of the BNS. The applicant, a government officer, contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, citing statements made under Section 183 of the BNSS and digital correspondence.

While the State opposed the bail citing the dismissal of a previous application on September 23, 2026, the Court found the subsequent delay in the trial proceedings to be a decisive factor. The application was allowed under Section 483 of the BNSS, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54136 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:33186
Case Title: Arvind Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Rinku Rathour - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Dinesh Savita - PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 36540