1 2025:CGHC:54227 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1617 of 2025 Praveen Kumar Das S/o Late Somaru Das Aged About 38 Years R/o Vilalge Parpa Gudipara, Police Station - Parpa, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Parpa, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.196/2025 registered at Police Station – Parpa, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 64(2) (M) of BNS 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act.) 2012. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.07 11:49:23 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged report at Police Station, Parpa, alleging therein that in the month of October, 2014 she came to Keshlur at the time of Dashahra Festival, where she acquainted with the applicant and they exchanged mobile numbers and since then they used to talk with each other through mobile. On 12.05.2016, the applicant came to Metawada and the prosecutrix went to meet with the applicant near Railway Track and on that day, the applicant given assurances of and committed commit sexual marriage intercourse with her and since then the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her on several time. On 09.08.2025 also the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and 18.08.2025 the prosecutrix came to know that the applicant has already performed marriage with other lady 3 months ago. On the basis of said report, the offences under Section 64(1), 64(2) (M) of BNS and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 have been registered against the applicant. 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 FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than ten years, only with an intention to harass the applicant. The prosecutrix, who is a major woman aged about 25 years, has nowhere alleged that the applicant forcefully established any physical relationship with her. The relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual, arising out of mutual affection and understanding. Even if the prosecution story is taken at its face value, it clearly appears that the prosecutrix, being in love with the applicant, willingly consented to the physical relationship, and such consent cannot be said to have been obtained under any misconception of fact. 3 The allegations, therefore, do not disclose the commission of any offence against the applicant. It is further submitted that arrest should always be the last option and must be restricted to exceptional circumstances. The applicant is a person of good reputation in society, and his arrest would cause irreparable harm to his image. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, having both movable and immovable property, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready and willing to abide by all conditions and directions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that notice has been duly served upon the brother of the victim, however, no one has appeared to raise any objection. She further submits that the present applicant, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with the victim and thereafter refused to marry her. Hence, considering the nature of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that the complainant is a major woman aged about 27 years. It is evident that the victim and the present applicant were in a consensual relationship since the year 2016 and had established physical relations during the said period. Subsequently, when their 4 relationship could not materialize into marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the victim on the ground that the applicant refused to marry her. Therefore, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Praveen Kumar Das , on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, 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 verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav