IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8709 of 2026 ARUN DHAKAD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sijoria with Shri Akshay Bhadoriya- Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Purushottam Rai- Advocate for the complainant.

Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.

ORDER The applicant has filed this first anticipatory bail application u/S.482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail. Applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.36/2026 for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 296A, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS.

The story of the prosecution is that the complainant reported that she had known Arun Dhakad/present applicant since childhood. Present applicant and the prosecutrix became friends about 3-4 years ago. They used to talk on the phone and videocalls to each other. Present applicant wanted to marry the prosecutrix, but she refused the same because of our different communities. Her engagement was scheduled for September 29, 2025. Therefore, Arun Dhakad called her on September 28, 2025, and invited her to meet him at Hotel Suhani, Kailaras on the pretext of discussing some important issue. The prosecutrix went to meet him. There, the present applicant,met her along with his friend- Mahendra Parmar and took her to a room . Arun Thereafter, the present applicant started abusing the prosecutrix and also forcefully committed rape upon the prosecutrix. The present applicant and his friend also recorded obscene videos of her. They also threatened her not to marry as per her will and threatened to make that obscene video viral. On 29.01.2026, the present applicant, by way of sending the obscene video of the prosecutrix to her husband, made them viral on social media. Accordingly, offence was registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The prosecutrix and the present applicant were in friendly relationship with each other and they also solemnized marriage with each other at Arya Samaj Temple. Further, when father of the prosecutrix came to know about this marriage, then just to exert undue pressure, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also argued that the FIR has been lodged belatedly after four months of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation has been given in this regard. The prosecutrix was in consensual relationship with the applicant, but, due to pressure of her parent, she lodged this FIR. On the date date of incident, there were friendly chats between the prosecutrix and the present applicant (Annexure A/3). The prosecutrix was forcefully taken away by her parents and was remarried by her parents against her will. Therefore, the present applicant also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is also pressed that once the prosecutrix and present applicant solemnized marriage on 07.10.2025 according to Hindu Rites and customs, then in view of the subsisting marital relationship between them, the essential ingredients of the Section 64(1) of BNS are not made out. The applicant at multiple times submitted written complaints before the Police Station- Kailaras complaining that his legally wedded wife was illegally detained by her parents. The applicant is having no criminal antecedents. The applicant is permanent resident of District - Morena(M.P) and there is no possibility of his absconsion and tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.

Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this application.

Learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the prayer and prayed for its rejection by submitting that the applicant not only forcefully raped the prosecutrix but also made obscene videos of her and subsequently made th