1 2025:CGHC:19985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3375 of 2025 Bhagwan Yadav S/o Kadwa Yadav Aged About 34 Years At- 335 New Nand Vihar Colony, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Azad Chowk, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Sanjay Sahu, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.05.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2025, registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 09.02.2025, the victim, who is herself a mature lady, lodged a written complaint stating that in August 2024, she had come to Amleshwar to attend a Shiv Puran RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Katha, and thereafter went to her uncle’s house at Gudhiyari. While returning, she met the applicant in a public auto, where they became acquainted and exchanged mobile numbers. Subsequently, telephonic conversations started between them. It is also alleged by the victim that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, called her to a hotel on 16.09.2024, where they stayed for two nights and had consensual sexual intercourse. She further admitted in her written complaint that they had such consensual relations at the same hotel on several occasions. Later, the applicant stopped communicating with her and switched off his mobile phone, due to which she filed a written complaint at the concerned police station, based on which the alleged offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He argued that the victim, who is a major lady aged about 32 years, had established a consensual relationship of her own will and had visited the hotel where the applicant had called her. Further, when the relationship could not materialize, she lodged the present FIR. He also submits that the victim was conscious of the fact that the applicant is already a married person. He further submits that the applicant did not commit any illegal activities with the victim without any her consent. He further argued that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim and she was a consenting party. He further submits that the applicant has no any previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 05.04.2025 and the trial 3 is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant/objector opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submitted that the applicant, who was already a married person and having children, on the pretext of marriage, established a relationship with the victim, and when she came to know about the said fact, the present FIR was lodged, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy and the fact that though the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the victim, who is a major lady aged about 32 years, had established a consensual relationship of her own will and had visited the hotel where the applicant had called her, further, when the relationship could not materialize, she lodged the present FIR, but the applicant, who was already a married person and having children, on the pretext of marriage, established a relationship with the victim, and when she came to know about the said fact, the present FIR was lodged, further the fact that, in reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim was conscious of the fact that the applicant is already a married person, but there appears to be no 4 evidence on record to support this fact, as such, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail, accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Bhagwan Yadav, involved in Crime No. 38/2025, registered at Police Station Azad Chowk, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 7. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan