1 2025:CGHC:57783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1833 of 2025 Vijay Umakant Waghmare S/o Umakant Waghmare Aged About 33 Years Occupation, Practicing As A MS Orthopaedic Surgeon R/o Sainik Colony Temburni Road Near M.G. College Ahmedpur, Tal- Ahmedpur, Dist- Latur, Pin Code- 413515, Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Station House O5cer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Sector-6, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. 2. Sonam Bhandikar Aged About 30 Years R/o MIG 1/819, Hudko Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicants For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Nargolkas, Advocate along with Ms. Bhakti C. Jogal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh K. Pande, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This ?rst anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been ?led by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 0499/2018 registered at Police Station – Bhilai Nagar, District – Durg (C.G.) for the oCence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is a reputed practising doctor and an MS (Orthopaedics) Surgeon, permanently residing at the address ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.11.27 19:13:02 +0530 2 mentioned above. He is presently employed with the Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 is the State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House O5cer, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Sector-6, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, which has registered FIR No. 0499 of 2018. Respondent No.2 is the original Complainant / First Informant. On 15.11.2018, an FIR bearing Crime No. 0499/2018 was registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Sector-6, alleging that the applicant, under a false promise of marriage, established sexual relations with the Complainant on two occasions: i. In or about March 2017 at the Complainant’s residence in Bhilai, Chhattisgarh; ii. On 12.04.2017 at a hotel in Pune, Maharashtra. The Applicant categorically denies ever visiting Bhilai, ever meeting the Complainant in person there, or ever promising to marry her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant was posted as a Resident Doctor in the Department of Orthopaedics at Sassoon General Hospital, Pune during the entire period of the alleged incidents. The o5cial attendance records, duly certi?ed by the Head of Department, conclusively establish that the Applicant was physically present and on duty in Pune on all relevant dates. IN also submits that in March 2017 (exact date not speci?ed in the FIR), when the complainant alleges that the applicant visited her residence at Bhilai, the applicant was present and marked on duty in the manual attendance register at Sassoon Hospital. He also submits that similarly, on 12.04.2017, when the complainant alleges that the applicant stayed with her in a hotel in Pune, the applicant was again present on duty. It is further submitted that a resident surgeon is not permitted to leave the hospital until his assignments are completed, which often continue for 3 several consecutive days. Therefore, the Applicant could not have met the complainant outside the hospital at all. The complainant’s mother attempted to coerce the applicant into marriage after he declined the proposal. It appears that the complainant’s mother was insistent on ensuring a matrimonial alliance with the applicant by any means. The complainant herself, in a recorded telephonic conversation, admitted that she was in love with another person and had no intention of marrying the applicant, and that she was distressed by her mother’s conduct. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of 19 months in lodging the FIR, without any contemporaneous complaint, medical record, or corroborative evidence. Such unexplained delay severely undermines the credibility of the allegations. The essential ingredients of the oCence of rape on the basis of a false promise to marry are not ful?lled. There was no promise, no meeting, and no physical contact between the parties. He also submits that the complainant herself admitted during telephonic conversations with the applicant that no promise of marriage was ever made to her and that her grievance stemmed solely from her mother’s insistence on forcing the alliance. Even assuming for the sake of argument and without admitting the same, that there was any physical intimacy between the parties (which is expressly denied), the complainant has herself admitted in the FIR that she visited the applicant at Pune of her own volition. This clearly establishes the consensual nature of the alleged interaction, and no case under Section 376 IPC is made out. The allegations are an afterthought, motivated by personal grudge and external inHuence. He also submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2025 SC 2629) has held that a consensual relationship turning sour or emotional diCerences arising subsequently cannot form the basis for 4 prosecuting an individual for rape. Such misuse of the criminal justice system tarnishes the reputation and identity of innocent persons. Even assuming, without prejudice, that there was consensual intercourse on the basis of a promise to marry, it must still be shown that the applicant had no intention to marry from the very beginning. In the present case, the complainant herself disclosed her romantic involvement with another person, making any alleged promise to marry inherently improbable and legally untenable. He also submits that the applicant was never served with any notice by the investigating agency. The allegation that the applicant was “absconding” is wholly incorrect. The Applicant has continuously resided at his permanent address and has been discharging duties at Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, both of which were mentioned in the FIR and are easily veri?able. Despite the FIR being lodged in 2018, the investigation has remained inconclusive for seven years, for which the applicant cannot be penalized. He submits that the applicant has preserved WhatsApp chats and voice recordings of telephonic conversations, which fully corroborate his defence. He undertakes to submit the same for forensic examination as and when required. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that the in compliance of this Court’s order dated 21.11.2025, the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, it is stated that a reference letter No. 01 was issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Durg, for obtaining the explanations of the Investigating O5cers of the case and for submitting a complete report of the action taken. The report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Durg, along with the explanations of the Investigating O5cers, has been examined. The 5 explanations submitted by the Investigating O5cers - Jitendra Chandrakar (Sub-Inspector), Dinesh Kumar (Assistant Sub-Inspector), and Mannulal Yadav (Sub-Inspector), were found unsatisfactory, and therefore, they have been awarded the punishment of censure. However, since the report of the Superintendent of Police, Durg, does not mention the role of the Gazetted O5cer (Supervising O5cer), the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, has been directed to assess the role of the Supervising O5cer and take appropriate action. A notice has been issued to the complainant of the case by the Station House O5cer, Bhilai Nagar, through communication dated 22.11.2025, directing her to appear before the Hon’ble High Court, Bilaspur, on 27.11.2025. Upon visiting the complainant’s residence, it was found that the house had been vacated. Therefore, she was contacted on her mobile phone. The information was sent to the complainant’s mobile number through the o5cial mobile number of the Station House O5cer and the complainant was also contacted telephonically, during which she was informed of the above details. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended in the present anticipatory bail application. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact despite the FIR being lodged in 2018, the investigation has remained inconclusive for seven years, and the applicant was never served with any notice by the investigating agency, it is evident that the delay is not attributable to the applicant. The applicant has continuously resided at his permanent address and has been discharging his duties at Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, both of which are mentioned in the FIR and are easily veri?able. Therefore, without commenting further on the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Vijay Umakant Waghmare, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting O5cer, he shall be released on 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 his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veri?ed by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any oCence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek