1 / 4 2025:CGHC:59513 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8559 of 2025 Gulshan Kannouje S/o Arun Kannouje (Wrongly Mention In The Impugned Order Araj) Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Arjuni (B), Thana - Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kasdol, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Jain, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.12.2025 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. 582/2025 registered at Police Station : Kasdol District – Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 64(2) (M) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.09.2025 prosecutrix aged VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.09 11:44:57 +0530 2 / 4 about 21 years lodge the written FIR against the applicant that have studied till class 10th about 1 year ago .we are with love relationship. On 10.6.2024 at 22.00 PM applicant committed sexual intercourse with pretext of marriage after we both met and applicant used to have physical relation with her due to which currently about 8 months pregnant. Applicant is neither marriage nor keeping with him then she lodge the written report 05.09.2025. Police registered the case against the applicant offence under section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. [64 (2) (M) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023]. 3. The applicant is innocent and has no connection with the alleged crime, and tthere is no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations against him. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, she is about 21 years of age, educated, and fully aware of what is right and wrong, and she lodged the complaint only after leaving her husband. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 06.09.2025, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 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. 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 alleged offence, and the material available on record, it appears that the victim and the present applicant were in a 3 / 4 consensual relationship and had established physical relations, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. When their relationship could not materialize into marriage, the victim lodged the present FIR alleging refusal on the part of the applicant to marry her. It is further noted that the charge sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.05.2024. The trial is also likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Gulshan Kannouje, involved in Crime No. 582/2025 registered at Police Station : Kasdol District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 64(2) (M) of the BNS., be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 him 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. 4 / 4 (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 forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav