1 2025:CGHC:10879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1708 of 2025 Parmeshwar Jaisawal S/o Chandrakumar Jaiswal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Kukusada Police Station Patharia District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Thourgh Police Station Patharia District - Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 05.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.296/2024, registered at Police Station Patharia, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 332 of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that the victim is aged about 22 years and has lodged a written complaint against the applicant before the concerned Police Station alleging therein that she has studied till class 12th and she loved with the applicant Parmeshwar KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Jaisawal from the year of 2019. On 11.11.2024 the victim’s mother had gone to her paternal house and when the victim was alone in the house. On 12.11.2024 at 4 am, the applicant went to the victim’s house and committed sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage then he committed sexual intercourse twice by pretest of marriage and when the victim was denied, he said that he will marry her. Thereafter, the applicant denied for marriage, so the victim has lodged report before Police Station Patharia, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 69, 332 B.N.S. against applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the victim is is major girl aged about 22 years old and she is consenting party. He further submits that the victim is educated and well developed lady and they both were in love affair from the year 2019 and further the fact that there is inordinate delay of 5 days in the lodging the first information report which has not been satisfactorily explained and moreover there is no injury on the part of victim, no definite opinion can be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. He further submits that there is no previous criminal record of the applicant and in the present case, charge- sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and further 3 the fact that the present applicant has forcefully committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, he refused to do so. Therefore, the present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, it appears that the victim is a major girl aged about 22 years old and the FIR was registered after the delay of 05 days for which no explanation has been offered in this regard and further the applicant and the victim were in love affair since 2019 and it appears to be a consenting party, thus without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. 7. 7. Let the Applicant -Parmeshwar Jaisawal, involved in Crime No.296/2024, registered at Police Station Patharia, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 332 of BNS., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) 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 4 to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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. (iv) 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal