1 2025:CGHC:61337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9292 of 2025 Ram Lallu Prajapati S/o Rajendra Kumar Prasad Prajapati Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Barol Badkapara, Police Outpost Karanji, Police Station Vishrampur District- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Vishrampur District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 250/2025, registered at Police Station : Vishrampur District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant/victim lodged FIR against the applicant stating that, in the month of March 2025 there VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.17 11:14:11 +0530 2 was marriage function of her aunt at village Amapara and in that marriage the applicant came from village Barol. Thereafter, complainant and applicant became friendly to each other, they both exchanged mobile numbers and she fallen in love. Thereafter, frequently the applicant was regular visitor in their house and few nights he stayed at complainant house. After that, on 28.08.2025 the applicant informed the parents and other relatives of complainant/victim that applicant will marry her and on that promise he has taken the complainant/victim along with him. Thereafter, the applicant and complainant/victim has physical relation on regular basis but on 24.09.2025 the applicant refused to marry her and later on he dropped her at her house. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the investigating agency has failed to collect any cogent or material evidence against the applicant and that there are several discrepancies in the investigation, yet the applicant has been arrested without any justifiable reason. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, it is evident that at the inception of the relationship both the applicant and the complainant were majors, while the applicant himself was barely 18 years of age and falls within the adolescent category, whereas the complainant, being older, was more mature and aware of the consequences of the relationship. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had easily allured or deceived the complainant; rather, the facts suggest a relationship involving a significant age differential in which the complainant, being a major, 3 may have exercised greater influence or leverage over the adolescent applicant. It is further submitted that a mere breach of promise to marry cannot be equated with the offence of rape, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has cautioned against the growing tendency to convert failed consensual relationships into criminal prosecutions leading to unwarranted incarceration. The present case squarely falls within such category. Moreover, from the FIR, police statements, and the statement of the complainant under Section 183 BNSS, it is clear that during the initial phase of the relationship the applicant had not even attained full majority, therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of 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, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the material available on record, including the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which prima facie indicate that the victim, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, during which a physical relationship was established and thereafter the relationship could not materialize, leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and further taking into account that the applicant has been in custody since 01.10.2025 and that the trial is likely to take 4 considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Ram Lallu Prajapati, involved in Crime No. 250/2025, registered at Police Station : Vishrampur District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, be released on bail on 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 5 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav