1 2025:CGHC:53889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1691 of 2025 Mahesh Yadav S/o Ramanarayan Yadav Aged About 27 Years Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Parpatiya P.S. And P.O. Kamleshwarpur, Tehsil- Mainpat District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House O4cer, P.S. Kamleshwarpur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.70/2025 registered at Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420/34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the husband of victim KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 was languishing in jail since 15 years after being convicted for o:ence of murder and during this period she gave a birth to one male child named Lora and one female child named Taguwa and her son died due to snake bite for which she was awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- to withdraw which the applicant and his brother took her to bank withdrew it and kept the same. It is further alleged that during these prolonged period the applicant and his brother Praveen Yadav have several times committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and her youngest girl is born out of the relation with Mahesh Yadav. Therefore the report was lodged after her husband came out of the jail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has not committed any of the o:ences alleged against him and has been falsely framed under the in?uence and pressure of the husband of the victim, as the applicant’s father, namely Ramnarayan, had deposed as a prosecution witness against the said husband in a murder case, in which he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is further submitted that the victim is aged about 46 years and is the mother of Bve children. When her husband returned from jail after serving 15 years of imprisonment in the year 2023, upon inquiring about the two younger children born during his incarceration, the victim admitted that one child was born out of her relationship with a school teacher (who later committed suicide after the disclosure), and the other child was born out of her consensual relationship with 3 the present applicant. Thereafter, due to this grudge and to avenge the conviction caused by the applicant’s father’s testimony, a false and fabricated case has been lodged against the applicant. It is also urged that the victim is a major and married woman who voluntarily maintained a relationship with the applicant and no act constituting an o:ence has been committed by him. The allegation regarding withdrawal of compensation amount is baseless, as no such amount was ever received by the applicant, the same was withdrawn by the victim herself from her own account. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of four years, only with a view to harass and malign the applicant and his family. It is also pointed out that the co-accused Praveen Yadav, who is similarly situated, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in MCRCA No.1507/2025 (Annexure A/2). On these grounds, it is prayed that the present applicant may kindly be extended the beneBt of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail application and submits that as per the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS of the victim, her son died due to snake bit for which she was awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The applicant and his brother took her to bank and withdraw and kept the same and during these prolonged period the applicant and the co-accused several time committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and her youngest daughter is born out of the relation with Mahesh Yadav/applicant and investigation against him is ongoing. therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 4 anticipatory bail in the present case. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the allegations against the applicant arise out of a long-standing personal enmity between the families of the victim and the applicant and the material on record indicates that the husband of the victim was convicted for an o:ence of murder on the basis of the deposition of the applicant’s father, which prima facie suggests the existence of animosity and motive for false implication and further from perusal of the case diary and the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it is revealed that the present FIR has been lodged after a considerable lapse of time, only after the husband of the victim was released from jail moreover, the co-accused, Praveen Yadav, who stands on an identical footing, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 in MCRCA No. 1507/2025 therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mahesh Yadav, on executing a personal bond with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting O4cer, 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. 5 (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 alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be veriBed by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any o:ence of similar nature in future. 7. O4ce is directed to send a certiBed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal