1 2026:CGHC:18144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 585 of 2026 Pavindra Kumar Diwakar S/o Shatruhan Diwakar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Udka, P.S.- Fasterpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Fasterpur District- Mungeli (C.G.) ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ayush LALL, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.04.2026 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. 30/2026 registered at Police Station – Fasterpur District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2) (m) & 69 of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case in brief is thaton 18/03/2026, prosecutrix has lodged a report at police Station Fasterpur against the applicant with the allegation that, on 10/03/2022, at around 9:00 pm, the applicant came to her home and forcefully established physical relation with her VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.22 10:59:54 +0530 2 on the false pretext of marriage. The applicant continued this relationship through the year 2024 and as recently as on 06/01/2026 the applicant took her to the Raja Hotel at Old Bus Stand Bilaspur and continued to have physical relation with her on the false pretext of marriage. When the prosecutrix asked the applicant for marriage, he then kept on making excuses and eventually fled away and switched off his phone on 09/02/2026, to avoid his promise of marriage. On the said report of the prosecutrix offence under sections 64 (2) (m) & 69 of the BNS was registered against the applicant. 3. The applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. The relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was admittedly a long-term one, spanning over four years, which clearly indicates that it was a voluntary relationship between consenting adults and not one based on deceit from the inception. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix herself appeared before the Court and filed a sworn affidavit stating that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, which reflects that the FIR appears to be the result of a temporary emotional outburst or misunderstanding, and continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. The case of the applicant is also covered by the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Khamendra Sahu Vs. State of C.G., MCRCA No. 1371 of 2024, wherein anticipatory bail was granted in similar circumstances involving a consensual relationship between adults. The allegation of the applicant being absconding is misconceived, as he is a poor agricultural labourer who had gone outside the State for livelihood 3 and, during that period, lost his mobile phone, resulting in a communication gap, which was not a deliberate attempt to evade the process of law. It is further submitted that the action initiated against the applicant is mala fide and the dispute has been unnecessarily given a criminal colour, and there is no cogent evidence against him. The offences are triable by the Court of learned JMFC, and the allegations in the FIR do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The applicant is a reputed person in his locality, and his arrest in such a false case would cause irreparable loss to his reputation. He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court and is ready to furnish adequate surety; hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State, and submits that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, had sexual relations with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant 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 the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, it appears that the victim, being a major, and the present applicant were known to each other and were in a consensual relationship, during which a physical relationship was established. Thereafter, when the relationship could not culminate in marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the victim on the allegation that the applicant refused to marry her. 4 Therefore, without making any further comments on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Pavindra Kumar Diwakar, 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