1 2025:CGHC:59773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8778 of 2025 Ramjit Ram S/o Manbodh Ram Aged About 21 Years Cast- Rautiya, R/o Village- Darakharika, P.S.- Narayanpur, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Kunkuri, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.12.2025 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. 136/2025, registered at Police Station : Kunkuri District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N), 366 of IPC & 64(2) (M) and 87 of BNS. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 20-02-2024 till June 2025 the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.10 12:17:57 +0530 2 applicant and the prosecutrix were developed their physical relations with consent and the applicant assured her to marry, but when the mobile of the applicant was switch off the prosecutrix lodged a written report and thus the instant F.I.R. no 136/2025 was registered by the police at Police station - Kunkuri, district Jashpur, on 02-07-2025, hence the so called alleged offence has been committed by the applicant. A copy of the F.I.R. no 136/2025 is marked and annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A/2 for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the applicant is a poor labour-class youth aged about 21 years and has been falsely implicated in the present case despite being innocent. It is submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix were well acquainted with each other and were in a voluntary relationship, and at no point has the prosecutrix stated that any force or coercion was used by the applicant; rather, she herself admitted that she was in a relationship with him. The prosecutrix is a major and was a consenting party to the relationship for more than five months. The FIR appears to have been lodged merely because her mobile phone could not be reached when it was switched off, and not due to any unlawful act on part of the applicant. There is no allegation suggesting that the applicant deserves harsh punishment, nor is there any justifiable reason for his continued incarceration. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.07.2025, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that present applicant/accused committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 3 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 and gravity of the offence, and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S.S, it appears that the victim is a major and was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, thereby being a consenting party. Moreover, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant has been in custody since 04.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case 7. Let applicant, Ramjit Ram, involved in Crime No.136/2025, registered at Police Station : Kunkuri District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N), 366 of IPC & 64(2) (M) and 87 of 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 4 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav