1 2025:CGHC:52988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1651 of 2025 Jagdish Prasad Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Jhumka, P.S. Sarsiwan, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Sarsiwan, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Abc D/o Barapaliha Shrivas Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jhumka, Tahsil And P.S. Sarsiwan, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-applicant (Cause Title is taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant :Ms. Raveena Soni, Advocate For Non-Applicant /State :Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 30/10/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 253/2025, registered at Police Station– Sarsiwan, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for alleged KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (In short, IPC). 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim, aged about 47 years, lodged a report at Police Station Sarsiwan for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. against the applicant, alleging that the applicant had established physical relations with her on the false pretext of constructing a pucca house, sanctioning a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, and on the further pretext that he had known and loved her since childhood. Based on the said report, the police registered an FIR on 19.08.2025, and the matter is presently under investigation. Earlier also complainant lodged complaint before the police, but at that time the complainant settled the dispute outside the Court vide settlement dated 27.07.2024. (copy of the settlement deed dated 27.07.2024, is filed herewith Annexure A/2.) 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the said crime. Earlier in the year 2024, the complainant lodged complaint before the police, but at that time the complainant settled the dispute outside the court vide settlement dated 27.07.2024. The applicant complied with the conditions of settlement deed dated 27.07.2024, and constructed house for the complainant, thereafter after the lapse of one year, the complainant again demanded money and other renovation works of her house. The applicant denied the demand of the complainant and therefore the complainant lodged the instant complaint. The complainant and applicant were in 3 consensus physical relationship for last 15 years. The complainant in order to gain monetary benefit of relationship blackmailed the applicant many times and on non- fulfillment of demand, the complainant lodged instant complaint. She further submits that no other criminal case has been registered or pending against the applicant except the present case. Accordingly, she prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that, as per the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it transpires that the applicant came into contact with the victim after the death of her husband. The victim had paid an amount of ₹6,00,000/- to the applicant for the construction of her house, but the same was not constructed as agreed. It is further alleged that the applicant thereafter attempted to sexually exploit the victim and established physical relations with her against her will. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it reveals that the applicant came into contact with the victim after the death of her husband. The victim had paid an amount of ₹6,00,000/- to the applicant for the 4 construction of her house, which was not completed as agreed and further it appears that the applicant thereafter attempted to sexually exploit the victim and established physical relations with her against her will. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Jagdish Prasad Sahu, filed under Section 482 of BNSS involved in Crime No. 253/2025, registered at Police Station–Sarsiwan, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal