1 2025:CGHC:49463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1392 of 2025 Siddhant Kumar Rathore S/o Varun Rathore Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Ghagra P.S. And Tehsil- Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh .. Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.09.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.390/2025 registered at Police Station – Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim lodged an F.I.R. on 17.07.2025 before the concerned police station with the intent that that five years back when she was alone at her house on KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 10/01/2021, the present applicant came into her house and committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, on 18/02/2022 again, when she went to Kharsiya and met with the applicant and again the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her. The applicant at several locations including Orissa, on 05/09/2024, at his rental house 25/06/2025 and on 08/07/2025, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the applicant but when the victim asked the applicant to marry then he denied to marry the victim therefore, the case was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the victim is a major girl, aged about 21 years and was involved in a consensual physical relationship with the applicant. When their relationship could not be formalized into marriage, she lodged the FIR against the applicant under the pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that in the year 2021, the victim was a minor and was already in a consensual relationship with the applicant, which continued even after she attained majority. The applicant contends that the alleged relationship was consensual and that the FIR was lodged only after their relationship could not materialize into marriage. The FIR alleges offences under Section 69 of the BNS Act and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. He further submits that the relationship between the applicant and the victim continued for over five years with her full consent, as evidenced by repeated cohabitation, visits, and absence of resistance on her part. Moreover, 3 there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been provided. It is also submitted that although the parties were in a love affair, the applicant’s family opposed the continuation of the relationship. Accordingly, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel appearing for the objector opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that presently the victim is a major girl aged about 21 years and the applicant has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage since 2021 and thereafter refused to do so. Hence he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 11.09.2025, the victim personally appeared before this Court through video conferencing and opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that she has objections if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and further the fact that from perusal of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that the victim is a major girl, involved in physical relationship with the applicant since long time and when their relationship could not be materialized, she lodged the FIR against the applicant and also considering the fact that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no explanation has 4 been offered thus, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Siddhant Kumar Rathore, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:- (a) He 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) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He 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 their 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) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court would make en earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six month from the date of filing of the charge-sheet, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal