1 2025:CGHC:60110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8367 of 2025 Tarun Deep Nishad S/o Shri Ganesh Nishad, Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. 7/343, Bazar Chowk, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 463/2025 registered at Police Station - Koni District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.11 12:08:10 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged a complaint before the police station Koni alleging that the applicant herein has developed physical relationship from 01/12/2021 to 15/12/2021 with the prosecutrix on pretext of marriage. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR bearing Crime no 463/2025 has been lodged for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) and the instant crime is under investigation. The Advocate on behalf of applicant herein moved an application under Right to information Act 2005 to get copy of FIR but the same is not provided. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant respectfully submits that, even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the basic ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted against the applicant. The prosecutrix was a major, aged about 22 years at the time of the alleged incident and is presently 26 years old, and it is incomprehensible why she remained silent for nearly four years if any wrongdoing had occurred in 2021. Both the prosecutrix and the applicant are well-educated—she being a medical graduate and the applicant an engineering graduate— and they have known each other for several years. The prosecutrix appears to have developed emotional infatuation towards the applicant and desired to marry him, and when the applicant did not reciprocate her wish, the FIR appears to have been lodged as a means of exerting pressure. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC. There is no material on record to show that the applicant ever obtained the prosecutrix’s consent by misrepresentation or coercion. The case appears false and fabricated, and the prosecution has failed to establish even a prima 3 facie case against the applicant. The applicant has been in custody since 01.10.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application and submitted that the present applicant, on the pretext of marriage, engaged in a physical relationship with the victim and thereafter refused to marry her; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be granted regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is alleged that the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at Police Station Koni stating that the applicant and the prosecutrix, who was a major at the relevant time, were in a consensual relationship from 01.12.2021 to 15.12.2021 on the assurance of marriage, however, the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of almost four years, and the material on record indicates that both parties were in a voluntary relationship and their relationship could not materialize into marriage, which appears to be the reason for filing the present FIR. It is further noted that the FSL report has been found negative, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.10.2025 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Let the Applicant – Tarun Deep Nishad, involved inCrime No. 463/2025 registered at Police Station - Koni District Bilaspur (C.G.), for 4 the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC., be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office 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 vaibhav