Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to 50-year-old senior advocate Imtiyaz Ahmad Siddiqui in Chhatarpur, ruling that allegations of rape and forced religious conversion stemmed primarily from a consensual relationship, according to legal proceedings.
The Bottom Line
- Court Ruling: Justice Devanarayanan Mishra of the Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench approved Siddiqui’s anticipatory bail plea following arguments from both legal teams.
- Key Evidence: Defense counsel presented a voluntary affidavit signed by the 32-year-old complainant on February 26, 2026, alongside a live-in relationship agreement dated July 20, 2026.
- Pending Mandate: The accused senior lawyer is legally mandated to cooperate fully with ongoing police investigations tied to charges filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and state anti-conversion statutes.
Legal Arguments and Defense Submissions
The case originated from an FIR registered on August 3, 2026, after a 32-year-old woman from a rural pocket of Chhatarpur, practicing law locally, brought formal accusations against Siddiqui. Senior advocate Manish Dutt and advocate Siddharth Bendel represented the defense during the bail hearings. They argued that both parties are literate adults operating within the legal profession who entered into documented domestic arrangements of their own volition.
According to court filings, the defense presented a sworn affidavit dated February 26, 2026, wherein the complainant expressed explicit intentions to marry the senior advocate. This document was followed by a formal live-in relationship agreement executed on July 20, 2026, after which both individuals resided together in rented accommodation.
Prosecution Objections and Allegations
State prosecutors and counsel representing the complainant mounted a rigorous defense of the initial charges, pushing back against the bail application. They contended that Siddiqui exploited his senior professional position to secure physical intimacy through false promises of marriage and subsequently exerted pressure on the woman regarding religious conversion.
The prosecution’s brief also highlighted claims that the accused recorded initial private encounters without consent, allegedly utilizing the material for blackmail. Counsel argued that these factors precluded the granting of pre-arrest protection under standard judicial guidelines.
High Court Observations and Statutory Charges
Justice Devanarayanan Mishra noted that case records establish professional contact between the two individuals beginning in 2024. The bench emphasized that the complainant refrained from lodging any formal police complaint until August 3, 2026, during which extended window multiple agreements regarding cohabitation and marriage were voluntarily generated.
Consequently, the court determined that the dispute bore the prima facie characteristics of an consensual arrangement rather than targeted sexual exploitation by a senior practitioner. The initial police case, filed on August 3, 2026, includes sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and sections 3 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act.
| Case Milestone / Document | Date Recorded | Legal Status |
|---|---|---|
| Complainant’s Affidavit | February 26, 2026 | Submitted by defense as evidence of consent |
| Live-in Relationship Agreement | July 20, 2026 | Acknowledged in High Court records |
| Formal Police FIR Registered | August 3, 2026 | Includes BNS and religious freedom statutes |
| High Court Bail Order | Anticipatory bail granted with cooperation terms |
Following the High Court order, the legal focus shifts entirely to the mandatory cooperation agreement required from the accused as police investigations continue across Chhatarpur.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or legal advice.
