The Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted evidence of a consensual affair, questioning the claims of blackmail. The ruling reignites nationwide debate on men’s rights and alleged misuse of criminal laws in relationship disputes.
JABALPUR: In a case that perfectly illustrates how criminal law can be misused as a weapon to settle personal scores, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to Ajjeet Pal Singh, who had been behind bars since 13 January 2025.
Justice Devnarayan Mishra observed that the FIR may have been lodged under the influence of the victim’s husband, highlighting how even well-intentioned laws can be turned against innocent men.
The Court further noted that, while the allegations require full trial verification, keeping an adult man in jail for months on a forced FIR with weak and inconsistent claims would have been an abuse of justice.
Facts of the Case
Background:
Ajjeet Pal Singh was accused under Sections 64(1), 308(5), 296, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following FIR at Kotwali Police Station, Sidhi. The alleged victim is an educated woman and elected municipal chairperson.
According to submissions made before the Court, the victim’s husband had filed a divorce petition alleging adultery, claiming that his wife and the applicant were in a relationship and had stayed together in Prayagraj. That divorce petition was later dismissed for non-prosecution, raising questions about the motivation behind the FIR.
Allegations by Prosecution / Complainant:
The applicant allegedly coerced the victim using her photographs and videos. He allegedly extorted money, reportedly used to buy a car. Prior criminal history was cited, including an assault case. Investigating agencies claimed recovered material supports coercion and sexual assault allegations.
Defense / Applicant’s Arguments:
The relationship was consensual, and the FIR may have been filed under marital or social pressure. No direct evidence of financial misappropriation exists; witness statements indicate funds came from the applicant’s uncle, not the victim. Previous case of alleged rape ended in acquittal, indicating no criminal conduct. The applicant has been in pre-trial custody for months, and trial proceedings will take longer, making bail reasonable.
Contradictions:
- Evidence shows the parties were well acquainted, suggesting mutual consent, not coercion.
- Divorce petition and timing of FIR suggest external pressures influencing the complaint.
- Alleged financial transactions are unsupported by bank records or direct evidence.
- Prior acquittals indicate earlier claims were already disproven, further weakening prosecution claims.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Devnarayan Mishra carefully examined:
- Sealed evidence from the applicant, including photos and phone call logs.
- The timeline of the divorce petition and FIR filing to evaluate motive.
- Witness statements and police reports regarding financial transactions and coercion.
Observations:
“The parties were well acquainted with each other. Without commenting on the merits, the applicant may be released on bail under strict conditions.”
The Court highlighted that bail is not a declaration of innocence, but pre-trial detention based on a potentially forced FIR is neither just nor intended by the law.
Bail Conditions:
- Applicant shall not intimidate or influence the victim, her family, or witnesses.
- Applicant shall personally appear in all trial hearings, except in genuine medical emergencies, certified by a Government Hospital.
- No repeat offence: if a substantial criminal case is registered within one year, bail automatically ceases.
- Furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety of equal amount.
- Comply with Section 480(3) BNSS regarding conduct during trial.
Court’s Findings
Pre-existing Relationship Recognized:
The Court noted that the existence of mutual acquaintance and prior interactions between the parties raises serious doubts about allegations of coercion or blackmail.
“The parties were well acquainted with each other. Evidence placed before this Court suggests that the alleged victim and the applicant shared a prior relationship. Without commenting on the merits, such a background cannot justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration.”
FIR Possibly Influenced by External Pressure:
Justice Mishra highlighted that allegations emerging immediately after marital disputes can indicate potential misuse of law rather than genuine criminal intent.
“From the record, it appears that the FIR may have been lodged under influence or pressure from the victim’s husband. The timing of the complaint in relation to the dismissal of the divorce petition reinforces this suspicion.”
Weakness of Prosecution Evidence:
The Court emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations even if technically fitting the sections invoked cannot justify continued detention.
“Perusal of the statements, reports, and materials shows absence of direct financial misappropriation, bank transfers, or corroborative witnesses linking the applicant to alleged extortion. Mere assertions of monetary gain or threats without material proof cannot sustain criminal liability.”
Prior Acquittals and Pattern of Allegations:
Justice Mishra reinforced that previous judicial outcomes supporting consensual relations must be considered to prevent harassment.
“The applicant has faced prior allegations, including a trial for sexual assault, in which he was acquitted. Such history, while recorded, does not automatically validate new claims, especially when the allegations relate to consensual interactions and lack direct evidence.”
Pre-trial Liberty Must Be Protected:
The Court underlined the fundamental principle of criminal law: bail is a right, not a favor, when no prima facie offence is clearly established.
“While the allegations require full trial verification, it is equally important that pre-trial custody is not weaponized to coerce, intimidate, or punish the accused before any adjudication of guilt. Liberty cannot be curtailed based on a possibly forced FIR.”
Strict Bail Conditions to Prevent Further Misuse:
Justice Mishra’s observations make it clear that the Court is balancing liberty with safeguarding the trial process, preventing both harassment and interference.
“The applicant shall not threaten or induce the victim, her family, or any prosecution witness. Personal appearance in all trial hearings is mandatory unless prevented by genuine medical reasons. Any repetition of offences or registration of a substantial criminal case will automatically nullify this bail.”
Summary of Findings:
- Pre-existing consensual relationship is acknowledged.
- Allegations may be influenced by external pressures, notably the victim’s husband.
- Evidence of coercion, blackmail, or extortion is weak and lacks direct proof.
- Pre-trial detention based on a forced FIR would constitute injustice.
- Bail is granted with strict conditions to ensure fairness to both parties.
Explanatory Table of Sections / Judgements Quoted by the Court
| Law / Case | Section / Citation | Explanation / Relevance |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | 64(1) : Blackmail 308(5) : Sexual Exploitation 296 : Threats 351(3) : Coercion | Alleged offences against Ajjeet Pal Singh. Court noted that while these are serious charges, material evidence is weak, and FIR may have been forced. |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | 483 : Bail 480(3) : Conduct of accused | Bail provisions applied; Court ensured pre-trial liberty without compromising trial integrity. |
| Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 | – | Laid down that accused cannot be harassed in pre-trial custody if no prima facie case exists. Court relied on this principle to prevent misuse of criminal process against men. |
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335) | – | Established principles for quashing FIRs where allegations are vague, omnibus, or mala fide. Court cited to highlight possible forced nature of FIR. |
| Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004) 3 SCC 199 | – | Clarified that relationships “under the colour of marriage” may attract Section 498A, but not when based on fraud or external pressure. Court used this to distinguish consensual relationships from coercion. |
| Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1168) | – | Held that vague and omnibus allegations without specific incidents warrant quashing or careful judicial scrutiny. Court cited to reinforce weak prosecution claims. |
| Previous Acquittal – Alleged Rape Case (Trial Court) | – | Applicant acquitted, establishing relationship was consensual, reducing the credibility of coercion allegations. |
| Family Court Order (Divorce Petition) | Section 13 HMA | Divorce petition filed by husband dismissed for non-prosecution; Court used this to suggest FIR may have been influenced by external pressures rather than genuine grievance. |
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
| Case Title | Ajjeet Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr |
| Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur |
| Judge / Bench | Hon’ble Justice Devnarayan Mishra |
| Case Number | MCRC 44293/2025 |
| Date of Arrest | 13 January 2025 |
| Alleged Offences | Sections 64(1), 308(5), 296, 351(3) of BNSS, 2023 |
| Applicant / Accused | Ajjeet Pal Singh |
| Respondent / Complainant | State of Madhya Pradesh / Alleged Victim |
| Bail Application | Third application under Section 483 BNSS |
| Previous Bail Attempts | M.Cr.C. 11318/2025 – Withdrawn (24 April 2025) 2. M.Cr.C. 34468/2025 – Withdrawn (19 September 2025) |
| Previous Relevant Proceedings | Divorce petition filed by victim’s husband dismissed for non-prosecution on 25 August 2025 |
| Trial Status | Ongoing at trial Court, Sidhi |
| Order / Relief | Regular bail granted with strict conditions (personal bond ₹50,000 + one solvent surety of same amount) |
| Key Legal Principle | Forced or externally influenced FIRs cannot justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Courts must ensure fair trial while protecting liberty. |
| Question in Issue | Whether a criminal FIR alleging blackmail, sexual exploitation, and extortion can justify pre-trial incarceration when material suggests a consensual prior relationship and possible external influence. |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.