1 2025:CGHC:742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1497 of 2024 Abhishek Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Tikari P.S. Arjunda, District Balod Chhattisgarh (Complete Address Is Not Given In The Cause Title Of The Impudgned Order) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The S.H.O. Police Station Arjunda District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 06.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.211/2024, registered at Police Station – Arjunda District Balod (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence 2 punishable under Sections 127(3), 115(2), 62, 64, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS. 2. Prosecution story in a nutshell is that the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Arjunda, District Balod, alleging that she was confined by the accused, Jishan Khan, and his family. She stated that Jishan Khan and his father committed wrongful acts against her, and his friend also attempted to harm her. Additionally, Jishan Khan's parents assaulted her and threatened her life. On 05.11.2024, Jishan Khan asked her to marry him over the phone, and when she refused, he threatened to harm himself, her, and her family. On 06.11.2024, he took her to Durga Mandir in Durg and forcibly married her. Afterward, they went to a Dhaba, where Jishan Khan's friends tried to harm her, but she retaliated by throwing her footwear at them. On 07.11.2024, Jishan Khan took her to his house and confined her near a washroom with only a curtain for privacy. She alleged that during the nights of 07.11.2024, 08.11.2024, and 09.11.2024, both Jishan Khan and his father repeatedly committed wrongful acts against her. She was not fed for three days, and when food was eventually given, it was laced with substances that made her feel dizzy. She also alleged that Jishan Khan's parents assaulted her and attempted to kill her. Throughout her confinement, she was not allowed to contact her family. On 15.11.2024, when she was alone at the house, the house help arrived, and the complainant used the 3 house help's mobile phone to call her father and inform him of her situation. Based on her report, Police Station Arjunda registered a case offences under Sections 127(3), 115(2), 62, 64, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay hence this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant applicant has no role to play in the above mentioned crime and further, there is no any allegation of rape or adduction against the present applicant. The present applicant has not even met the prosecutrix ever in any dhaba and he is not directly or indirectly connected to her. Later, the other co-accused of the case has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 1396/2024 vide order dated 03.12.2024 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co-accused. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant are of serious nature and the applicant along with other co-accused has committed heinous crime. Perusal of the case diary goes to show that the applicant was absconding after the date of incident and there is a strong possibility of him influencing the witnesses, if he 4 is given the benefit of anticipatory bail. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation levelled against the present applicant and the seriousness of crime committed by the applicant along with other co-accused persons and further in the anti-bail report from Police Station Arjunda, it has been stated that the applicant has been absconding after the date of incident and there is a strong possibility of him influencing the witnesses if he is given the benefit of bail and there is no such fact in the case diary which appears to show that the crime has been registered against the applicant by Police Station Arjunda with the intention of hurting the dignity of the applicant/accused, hence, on the above grounds, keeping in mind the serious circumstances of the crime and all the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Abhishek Kumar, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.211/2024, registered at Police Station – Arjunda District 5 Balod (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 127(3), 115(2), 62, 64, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS., is rejected. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan