1 2025:CGHC:13064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2192 of 2025 Rishiraj Kumar Shukla S/o Sudhakar (Wrongly Mentioned As Sudharak) Shukla Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gharthawariya Gharthaliya Fatehpur Bypass Road, Gali Number 1, P.S. And District- Sivan Bihar Presently R/o K.V. School P.S. Araimile (Wrongly Mentioned As Araimali) District- Tura Meghalaya ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.20/2025, registered at Police Station Khairagarh District MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.21 10:35:08 +0530 2 Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69, 64(2)(m) of the BNS. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged First Information Report (F.I.R.) on 15/01/2025 alleging that she met the applicant in the year 2022 and on her birthday, the applicant took the prosecutrix at Chinta Lal Lodge on the pretext of marriage and sexually abused the prosecutrix and when the prosecutrix asked the applicant to marry her, then the present applicant denied marrying the prosecutrix therefore aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no abovementioned offences are made out against the applicant as the prosecutrix is major and she is a contesting party in the present case. Further, the applicant and the prosecutrix both were in a relationship. The prosecutrix in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) only made allegation regarding pretext of marriage but when her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Learned Magistrate, she changed her version and stated that the applicant alongwith his friend namely Santosh took her to hotel and mixed something in her drink and thereafter they committed sexual assault on her which is totally different from the report. The applicant is only aged about 27 years and is languishing in jail since 03.02.2025 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant are of serious nature and looking to the gravity of offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the case diary goes to show that the applicant and the complainant were in a mutual relationship and when the relationship could not materialized, she lodged a report against the applicant and further, though the complainant in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that the applicant along with one Santosh who happens to be the friend of the applicant took the complainant to a hotel for exchanging their girlfriends, but the said allegations is refuted in the 161 statement of the other girl with whom she was to be exchanged, as such, the allegations levelled against the applicant appears to be concocted, accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 6. 6. Let applicant, Rishiraj Kumar Shukla, involved in Crime No.20/2025, registered at Police Station Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69, 64(2)(m) of the 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 4 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. (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 them 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 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 Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial coout 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.urt on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 5 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. 7. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet