Court holds long-term consensual live-in relationship insufficient for anticipatory bail under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 amid serious allegations including attempted pregnancy termination.
In a significant ruling dated September 28, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, presided over by Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, refused anticipatory bail to Abhiraj Jogi, who faced allegations under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case revolves around serious accusations brought by the prosecutrix, involving a broken promise of marriage and an alleged attempt by the applicant to terminate her pregnancy.
According to the prosecution, Abhiraj Jogi and the prosecutrix were in a live-in relationship for approximately six years. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant had promised to marry her and on that basis, physical relations were established. However, the applicant later refused to marry her. Further complicating the matter, the prosecutrix claimed that when she became pregnant, the applicant attempted to terminate the pregnancy by providing pills intended for that purpose.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship was consensual and ongoing for several years, emphasizing that the failure to marry does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It was also contended that the FIR was a counterblast stemming from a money dispute, as the applicant had lent Rs. 1,10,000 to the prosecutrix, who allegedly filed the FIR to avoid repayment. The defense highlighted the applicant's clean antecedents, his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and the absence of any risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.
The State, represented by the Panel Lawyer, opposed the bail application, underscoring the gravity of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation. It was submitted that the prosecutrix's claims, including the promise of marriage and the attempted termination of pregnancy, were serious and warranted examination of evidence before any relief could be granted.
Justice Nirankari, after reviewing the case diary and material on record, noted that the fact of a consensual long-term relationship does not negate the specific allegations made. Importantly, the court observed that consent to physical relations does not grant an unconditional right to act in any manner, especially where there is an alleged promise of marriage that formed the basis of such relations. The court held that the disputed questions raised by the defense required detailed investigation and evidence appraisal.
The court distinguished the applicant's reliance on earlier orders granting anticipatory bail, stating those were factually different and did not create a precedent for automatic bail in this case. Given the nature of the accusations and the ongoing investigation, the court found no ground to exercise discretion in favor of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, the application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that serious allegations involving breach of trust and attempts to terminate pregnancy demand careful judicial scrutiny before any protective relief is granted.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in cases involving intimate relationships and allegations under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly emphasizing that consensual relationships over time do not preclude criminal liability if statutory ingredients of offenses are established.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in offence under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was refused where FIR and case diary disclosed specific allegations that applicant established physical relations on promise of marriage and later refused to marry, and also allegedly attempted termination of prosecutrix's pregnancy; long consensual relationship by itself was held not conclusive for grant of anticipatory bail.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 69, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Abhiraj Jogi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (MP)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990580
