1 2025:CGHC:39275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4609 of 2025 Manish Kumar Sahu S/o Dilip Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Goghranala Ward No. 13, Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station : Champa, District – Janjgi-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. As per case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix and applicant knew each other and were in love. From 2024 they have been living in VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.08.07 12:11:00 +0530 2 a live in relationship till the date of arrest and they also have a child. Allegation that he committed rape on the false pretext of marriage. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Even assuming the prosecution's version to be true, the conduct of the prosecutrix clearly indicates that she voluntarily stayed with the applicant and, despite having multiple opportunities, did not seek help or raise any objection. The entire case appears to be a result of personal vendetta by the prosecutrix’s family, aiming to harass the applicant through legal proceedings. Notably, the prosecutrix continued to cohabit with the applicant for over a year, treating him as her husband/partner, and never approached the authorities during that period. The parties are already married, and implicating the applicant in a fabricated case amounts to an abuse of process and a violation of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The proceedings are prima facie arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14, as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The applicant is a respected member of society and belongs to an honorable family. Moreover, the order sheet indicates it was the co-accused who had married the prosecutrix, further weakening the case against the applicant and the applicant has been in jail since 25.05.2025 and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the victim, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant during which a sexual relationship was established and thereafter, the relationship could not materialize, consequently leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and further taking into account that the applicant has been in custody since 25.05.2025 and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Manish Kumar Sahu, involved in Crime No. 79/2025 registered at Police Station : Champa, District – Janjgi-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount 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 sufficient 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 4 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav