1 2025:CGHC:14371 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2347 of 2025 Santosh Kumar S/o Arun Kumar Mistry Aged About 26 Years R/o Roopadevi, House No. 125, Bhikachak, P.S.- Anishabad Patna District Patna (Bihar) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Khairagarh District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Krishna Tondon, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 20/2025, registered at Police Station – Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 64(2)(m), 70(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) on 15.01.2025, alleging that she RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 met the co-accused, Rishiraj, in the year 2022. On her birthday, the co-accused took her to Chinta Lal Lodge on the pretext of marriage and sexually abused her. When the victim later asked the co-accused to marry her, he refused. In the F.I.R., the victim had only alleged that the co-accused deceived her under the pretext of marriage. However, when her statement was recorded before the Learned Magistrate under the relevant section, she changed her version and, for the first time, mentioned the name of the present applicant. She then alleged that the co-accused, along with the present applicant, took her to a hotel, mixed something in her drink, and subsequently committed sexual assault on her. This version is entirely different from what was stated in the initial report. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the victim is a major girl and she is consenting party in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has no role to play between the co-accused and the victim as they both were in relationship, the applicant and the victim both out of consent and suddenly she took the name of the applicant out of nowhere. He also submits that the other co-accused person, namely, Rishiraj Kumar Shukla has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRC No. 2192/2025, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co- accused, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the 3 applicant is in jail since 27.02.2025, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the co-accused, along with the present applicant, took her to a hotel, mixed something in her drink, and subsequently committed sexual assault on her, therefore, the 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 and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.02.2025, and the other co-accused person, namely, Rishiraj Kumar Shukla has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 in MCRC No. 2192/2025, and the case of present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, so far as the criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity. 7. 7. Let the Applicant- Santosh Kumar, involved in Crime No. 20/2025, registered at Police Station – Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for the offence punishable 4 under Sections 69, 64(2)(m), 70(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 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. 5 (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 certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan