Noida: A Noida court on Wednesday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused of establishing sexual relations with a woman on the pretext of marriage. The additional sessions judge said the allegations were of a serious nature, and that there was insufficient ground to grant the applicant protection from arrest.Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014), judge Sunil Kumar-I observed that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised only in exceptional cases — such as when an applicant appears to have been falsely implicated, or when there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is unlikely to misuse the liberty granted to them.The case stems from an FIR filed at Sector 49 police station by a woman who worked at Mahagun Mezzaria, under sections 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means), 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman), 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.According to the prosecution, the complainant had filed an application under Section 173(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking registration of the case, alleging that one Pankaj Malik, alias Mukund, had forced a physical relationship with her multiple times on the false promise of marriage. She later learned that he was already married and had children. When she confronted him, the prosecution said, he allegedly abused and insulted her, and threatened her life if she ever complained.Counsel for the applicant argued there was no evidence against his client. He submitted that the complainant, a 30-year-old adult aware of her rights, had reached out to the applicant — then working as a manager at a bar in Sector 76 — after a missed call, and that the two began talking. At the time, the counsel said, the complainant was in a live-in relationship with another person, and later left that home after a fight with her roommate and approached the applicant with her belongings. The counsel further claimed that the complainant already knew the applicant was married and had children.He also cited the applicant’s bail in a separate, linked case — filed under sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 109 (attempt to murder), 351(3) (aggravated criminal intimidation), 118(1) (hurt with a weapon), 191(2) (rioting), and 191(3) (rioting with a deadly weapon) — as grounds for anticipatory bail in the present matter.After hearing both sides, the court noted that the complainant, in her statement under Section 183 of BNSS, said she had met the applicant in 2024, the two became friends, and he subsequently began a relationship with her on the promise of marriage. The court further observed that investigation in the case was still underway, and concluded there were insufficient grounds to protect the accused from arrest.
