1 2026:CGHC:7926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 903 of 2026 Ankit Kispotta S/o Late Adward Kispotta Aged About 30 Years Caste - Uraon, R/o - Village - Majhgaon, P.S. And Tehsil - Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Bagicha, District - Jashpur (C.G.) … Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sharmila Singhai Sr. Advocate with Ms. Vidhi Matlani, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.02.2026 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. 162/2025 registered at Police Station : Bagicha District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) & 69 of the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.13 12:59:19 +0530 2 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in short is that on 08.08.2025 victim aged about 28 years lodged a written report stating that the Applicant since 30.03.2025 to 11.06.2025 Applicant on pretext of marriage made physical relation for multiple times. It is further stated that in the month of February 2025 it is alleged that victim and Applicant got engaged. As per the version of Victim on 08.03.2025 Applicant came to Victim's home and they both consented to get married. Again on 30.03.2025 Applicant came at Village of Victim and by saying that he would take her to meet his families, took her and then they built physical relation with the consent of the victim which resulted in Complainant's pregnancy. Thereafter Applicant refused to marry Victim n account of which FIR has been lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the The applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and the allegations against him are false, baseless and malicious. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred between 30.03.2025 and 11.06.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 08.08.2025 after a lapse of more than five months without any explanation by the victim. As per the prosecution case, the victim is a major aged about 28 years and it is alleged that they were in a relationship and had physical relations on multiple occasions, indicating that she was a consenting party; therefore, no offence under Section 64(2)(M) of the BNS is made 3 out. It is also submitted that no offence under Section 69 of the BNS is attracted as there is no allegation of forceful sexual intercourse in the FIR. There are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded in the FIR and under Sections 180 and 184 of the BNSS, rendering them unreliable. The dispute between the victim and the applicant has been given the colour of a criminal case. Further, the medical report does not support any allegation of forceful intercourse, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned above and there is no likelihood of his absconding. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim and thereafter denied, 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 of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNS, and further considering the fact that the victim, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant during which a physical relationship was established, and thereafter their relationship could not materialize, consequently leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and also considering that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court and the 4 applicant has been in jail since 17.09.2025 and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 7. Let applicant, Ankit Kispotta, involved in Crime No.162/2025 registered at Police Station : Bagicha District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) & 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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, 5 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav