1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1675 of 2025 • Sohan Kashyap S/o Late Sheshmal Kashyap Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Dhorakot, Police Station- Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya along with Mr. Deepak Kaushik, Advocate For Non- applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. In compliance of the order dated 03.03.2025, the parents of the prosecutrix have appeared through concerned DLSA and they have no objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 2. Applicant has filed this First bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 366 of 2024 registered at Police VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.03.22 17:33:20 +0530 2 Station – Devbhog, District – Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 (2)(n) of the I.P.C., and under Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and 376 (2)(n) of IPC and 6 of the POCSO, Act, 2012 (As per charge framed by the learned trial Court). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the present applicant made sexual relationship with the prsecutrix, by giving to promise of marriage. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the present accused made sexual relationship by giving to promise of marriage with her. On the said act of the accused the prosecutrix lodged the report to the police station – Devbhog, District – Gariyaband(C.G.) on the said report of the prosecutrix the police registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the prosecutrix is a major girl on the date of occurrence and she had love affair with the applicant and she is consenting party and she had written so may love letter to the applicant. He further submits that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and after completing the age of majority the prosecutrix voluntarily performed sexual intercourse with the applicant. He further submits that he is in jail since 14.11.2024. He nextly submits that last few months they have resided together in difference places as a husband 3 wife, therefore, there is no offence of rape is made out against the applicant, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that looking to nature of offence, applicant is not entitle to get bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering the fact that prosecutrix and applicant had love affair and applicant is in jail since 14.11.2024 and also submission made by parents of the victim through video conferencing, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that - (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without 4 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali