1 2026:CGHC:19423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3798 of 2026 Umesh Sonwani S/o Jayram Sonwani Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Khoddal, P.S. Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84/2026 registered at Police Station Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 64(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written complaint alleging that the accused, Umesh Sonwani, used to visit her house, forcibly tried to talk to her, and threatened to kill her if she refused. It is further alleged that on 07.01.2026, between 11:00 PM and 12:00 midnight, when the victim was alone at her house, the accused entered and forcibly established physical relations with her and threatened her not to disclose the incident. Due to fear of social stigma, the victim initially did not report the matter. Subsequently, on 16.01.2026, after her husband returned, she reported the incident at Police Station Urga, on the basis of which Crime No. 84/2026 was registered against the accused under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of the B.N.S. The accused was later arrested on 05.02.2026. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that both the applicant and the victim are married, were well acquainted for a long time, and were in a consensual relationship, regularly communicating over mobile phones. Photographs evidencing their relationship have been filed as Annexure A/3. He also submits that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was about 28 years old, an educated adult (B.Sc. pass), and the applicant was about 29 years old. Both belong to the same Scheduled Caste community. On this basis, it is argued that the relationship was consensual, and therefore, the offences under Sections 351(3) and 64(1) of the B.N.S. are not made out. He later 3 submits that there are material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, including unexplained delay in lodging the FIR (incident dated 07.01.2026, FIR dated 04.02.2026) and the circumstances of the alleged incident occurring in the house while others were present. Additionally, the medical report does not support the allegations, as no signs of recent injury were found and no definite opinion regarding sexual assault could be given. The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have repeatedly approached and threatened the victim and, on 07.01.2026, entered her house at night and forcibly established physical relations with her against her will, thereafter threatening her not to disclose the incident, thereby committing alleged offence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 05.02.2026, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to have repeatedly approached and threatened the victim and, on 07.01.2026, entered her house at night and forcibly established 4 physical relations with her against her will, thereafter threatening her not to disclose the incident, but considering the fact that victim is 28 year old major lady, victim and applicant were well acquainted to each other for a long time, and were in a consensual relationship, on account of which, they established physical relationship, wherein victim was a consenting party and when their relationship could not be materialized, victim lodged present FIR against the applicant to harass him, further considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Umesh Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 84/2026 registered at Police Station Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 351(3), 64(1) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two 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 5 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. (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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil