1 2025:CGHC:16186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 476 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar S/o Dinesh Shah Aged About 30 Years R/o In Front Of Jalaram Temple, Bapu Nagar, Zone-2, (Wrongly Mentioned As Zone In Cause Title Of The Order), Khursipar Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S- Khursipar, District Durg (C.G) ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For State : Mrs. Subha Shrivastava, PL. For complainant : Shri Faiz Kazi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 07/04/2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Shri Faiz Kazi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant, who is also present in the Court, states that the complainant wants to address the Court and he may be permitted to withdraw his power. 3. He is accordingly discharged from the present case. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.04.09 11:29:16 +0530 2 4. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.15/2025 registered at Police Station – Khursipar, District Durg (C.G) for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 296, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section (376, 294, 506(B) under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (wrongly mentioned as 376, 294, 506(B) of BNS in impugned order) (offence under BNS not mentioned in the impugned order). 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a report was filed by the complainant stating that she knows the applicant since 2015 and used to talk with him on phone since 2020, the applicant had promised to marry her and on 14.02.2021 took her to his friend's house and made physical relations. Whenever the applicant used to come on leave he used to make physical relations with the complainant. On 23.06.2023 they met for the last time and since then the applicant has blocked her, thereafter they stopped talking. On 8.03.2023 the applicant has approached the parents of the prosecutrix for marriage, however it could not materialize, after 26.03.2023 whenever the applicant used to call her he used to abuse her. It has been alleged that the applicant and his father used to threaten the prosecutrix to write on stamp paper that she does not have any relation with the applicant and in lieu of which she should accept Rs.60,000 from the applicant. She waited for the applicant and his family for 2 years to get married, after which she has filed the instant FIR. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and the prosecutrix is a major lady. The applicant and the prosecutrix were in love affair, however their marriage could not be materialize. He would submit that only after the 3 applicant was engaged to some other girl the prosecutrix has filed the instant FIR. He would submit that the applicant is working in army and the instant FIR has been filed merely to harass him. He would submit that earlier the families of applicant and prosecutrix had agreed to get them married and a notarized afÏdavit to this effect was also executed between the parties and a counselling was also held in the Army Campus at the posting place of the applicant wherein also it was agreed that the parties will get married. He would submit that he prosecutrix refused to marry the applicant in 2024 and got engaged on 29.11.2024 with some other person. He would submit that only after the prosecutrix got engaged, the marriage of the applicant was also fixed with some other girl, after which the prosecutrix filed the instant FIR. Therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Complainant who is present before the Court vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 10. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, also considering the fact that the complainant is a major girl and also the fact that the applicant and complainant were known to each other since 2015 and they developed physical relationship and FIR has been registered in 2025 and also considering the fact that investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4 11. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mukesh Kumar, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting OfÏcer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice gouri