'Serious Allegations': MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Husband Accused Of Trying To Commit Unnatural Sexual Acts With Wife
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a husband who is accused of causing injuries to his wife in order to raise the demand of Rs. 5 lakh and attempting to commit unnatural sexual acts with her, noting that the allegations were serious in nature. The bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani noted:"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a husband who is accused of causing injuries to his wife in order to raise the demand of Rs. 5 lakh and attempting to commit unnatural sexual acts with her, noting that the allegations were serious in nature.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani noted:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary, FIR, medical report, and other material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the present applicant are serious in nature.
The prosecution case discloses that the applicant allegedly caused injuries to the complainant in furtherance of a demand of Rs. 5 lakh and also attempted to commit unnatural sexual acts with the victim. At this stage, considering the gravity and nature of the accusations, the severity of punishment and the material collected during investigation, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed".
The husband had approached the High Court seeking a grant of anticipatory bail for a crime related to cruelty (Section 85), voluntarily causing hurt (Section 115(2)), Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an illegal to an act (Section 119(2)), criminal intimidation (Section 351(2)), and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The husband's counsel claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case. Further regrading allegations of dowry demand and subsequent injuries to the victim, the counsel argued that the incident occurred on March 2, 2026, but the FIR was filed three days later on March 5, 2026. It was argued that the victim did not explain the delay in filing the FIR.
The counsel for the wife and the State argued that the husband allegedly caused injuries to the victim in order to raise the demand of Rs. 5 lakh and also that the applicant has tried to have unnatural sex with the her. The complainant has sustained various injuries that have been revealed from the medical report. The offence under Section 119(2) of BNS is punishable with imprisonment of life. It was also submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on cogent evidence and material and there is no ground for release of the applicant on anticipatory bail.
The court, considering the gravity and nature of the accusations along with the severity of the punishment, deemed the case not fit to grant anticipatory bail.
Case Title: John v State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC-20592-2026
For Applicant: Advocate Aryan Shukla
For State: Advocate S.M. Patel
For Objector: Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwar