Introduction:

In a notable legal development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Murli Manohar Soni, who was booked under Sections 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means), 118(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The bench, presided over by Justice Devnarayan Mishra, imposed distinctive conditions on the bail, reflecting the court’s meticulous approach to such sensitive matters.

Case Background:

Murli Manohar Soni sought anticipatory bail following an FIR lodged against him under the aforementioned sections of the BNS. He contended that his relationship with the victim was consensual and that the FIR resulted from a personal dispute. Conversely, the victim’s counsel argued that Soni had coercedher into physical relations by threatening her. The state opposed the bail application, citing the medico-legal certificate (MLC) report, which indicated that the victim had sustained injuries on her head, hand, and stomach.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, Murli Manohar Soni, argued that the allegations against him were baseless and motivated by a personal quarrel with the victim. He emphasized that their relationship had been consensual and that the FIR was filed only after a dispute arose between them. His counsel contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, as the case did not involve any serious threat to the investigation. The petitioner also assured the court that he would fully cooperate with the authorities and comply with any conditions imposed for bail.

Victim’s and State’s Counterarguments:

The victim’s counsel strongly opposed the bail, asserting that the accused had used threats to force her into a physical relationship. The prosecution presented medical evidence, including the MLC report, which confirmed physical injuries sustained by the victim. The state argued that the injuries corroborated the victim’s allegations, making the bail plea untenable. It further contended that granting anticipatory bail might allow the accused to tamper with evidence or intimidate the victim.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Devnarayan Mishra, after carefully examining the case, acknowledged the gravity of the allegations but found that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage. Taking into account the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail while imposing stringent conditions. The court’s decision was also influenced by the precedent it had set in an earlier case, where similar conditions were imposed on a rape accused.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

• Full Cooperation with Investigating Agency: The accused must cooperate with the police throughout the investigation.
• Surrender of Electronic Gadgets: The accused must submit all electronic devices, including laptops and mobile phones, to the investigating agency.
• Disclosure of Social Media Credentials: The accused must provide passwords to all social media platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, to aid the investigation.
• Submission of Biological Samples: The accused must provide samples of his body fluids and blood if required by the police.
• No Contact with the Victim: The accused must refrain from directly or indirectly communicating with the victim or any witness in the case.

The court justified these conditions by referring to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which allows the imposition of specific conditions while granting anticipatory bail. It noted that these measures were necessary to ensure a fair investigation while balancing the rights of the accused and the victim.

Legal Implications of the Ruling:

This ruling sets a significant precedent in cases involving sexual offenses under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. By mandating the surrender of electronic devices and disclosure of social media credentials, the court underscores the role of digital evidence in modern investigations. It also reflects a cautious approach toward anticipatory bail in sexual offense cases, ensuring that investigative agencies have adequate access to potential evidence while safeguarding the rights of both parties.