1 2025:CGHC:33820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4886 of 2025 Amarpal Kashyap S/o Krishdan Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Talur, P.S. And District Bastar (C.G.) (Father Name Of The Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned In Order Impugned) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Farsagaon, District Kondagaon C.G. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 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. 32/2025 registered at Police Station : Farsagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(d), 342 of IPC. 2. As per case of the prosecution is that the victim has lodged the FIR against the present applicant alleging that he has maintained physical relation with her on the ground of pretext of marriage, on such complaint police has registered the FIR against the present applicant and started the investigation the meanwhile arrested to the applicant. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.07.18 11:04:29 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant seeks bail on the grounds that both he and the victim are adults and were in a consensual relationship. The victim initially alleged before the police that the applicant threatened to publish her photo on Facebook, but later stated in court that the photo had already been published. However, no such photo was submitted with the charge-sheet, and no charges under the IT Act were invoked. The victim also claimed that the applicant misled her into a physical relationship by hiding his marital status, but no such allegation was made in her original complaint, police statement, or statement before the magistrate. It is further submitted that the applicant had divorced his previous wife around five years ago as per Adivasi customs ("Jhandra Jhandri"), and the victim was aware of this. The FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay. The medical report does not support the prosecution's case, and overall, no offence is made out against the applicant. He reserves the right to raise further grounds during arguments and is a permanent resident with movable and immovable property, willing to furnish adequate surety and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court and he is in jail since 13.03.2025 and if he will take long time in jail and he will be adversely affected to survive of his family member, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 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 3 with the victim and thereafter denied, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 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, who is a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant during which a sexual relationship was established, and thereafter, their relationship could not materialize consequently leading to the lodging of the present FIR and the applicant has been in jail since 13.03.2025 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. 7. Let applicant, Amarpal Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 32/2025 registered at Police Station : Farsagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(d), 342 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. 4 (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 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