1 2025:CGHC:42027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1028 of 2025 1 - Haidar Ali S/o Shri Zibrail Ansari, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Mahaveerganj, Police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer,police Station Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20 .08.2025 1. This revision has been preferred by the Applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, (C.G.) in S.T. No. 83/2025, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.26 12:15:12 +0530 2 under Section 64(1) and 332(B) of BNS, 2023 against the applicant. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the complainant /prosecutrix has filed a written complaint on 03.06.2025 at the Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), alleging therein that she was married with one Jahangir R/o. Village Shahpur District Palamu (Jharkhand) on 19.08.2024. On 25.01.2025 she came to the house of her uncle ( Mushbar Ansari) at Mahavirganj and the applicant/accused was neighbor of Mushbar Ansari, where they known to each other. Thereafter she came back to her parental house at Ramanujganj. On 30.01.2025, when the she sleeping alone in her house in the morning, at that time the Applicant came to her and committed sexual intercourse with a promise that he will perform marry with her and he further ask the prosecutrix not to disclose the incident to anyone. Believing on the version of Applicant she did not disclose about the incident to anybody. When, the fact came to the knowledge of her husband, then she deserted her. Thereafter the Applicant also refused to perform the commitment. Based on the written complaint of the prosecutrix, the FIR was lodged, and the applicant was arrested on 03.06.2025. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was 3 filed against the applicant, and the trial court has framed charges under Section 64(1) and 332(B) of the BNS, 2023, against the applicant. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, as there is no connection with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is a married lady, aged about 21 years, and there is a delay of about 5 months in lodging the FIR without any plausible explanation. The prosecution has failed to establish its case against the applicant in its true perspective, and there is a missing link in the chain of circumstances. Therefore, the charge under Section 64(1) is not made out against the applicant and he may be discharged from the charges, and the impugned order dated 11.07.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, is liable to be set aside 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Applicant and submits that the trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the Applicant, and supports the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, it is apparent that the prosecutrix is a married lady and there is a charge of rape against the applicant as on the date of incident i.e., 30.01.2025, the applicant entered her house and committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her on false pretext of marriage and ask her not to disclose the incident to anyone. The fact that the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not can only be came into light after trial. In this situation, only on the ground that there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant is not liable to discharge from the charges framed against him. 7. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.