1 2026:CGHC:19316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3778 of 2026 Ritesh Pandey S/o Sheshnath Pandey Aged About 49 Years Caste Brahman R/o Vrindavan Colony Thana Bodhghat Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Bodhghat, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2026, registered at Police Station - Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of Bharartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.02.2026, the victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Bodhghat stating that she had known the applicant for the past one year. It is alleged that on 28.09.2025, the present applicant induced her on the pretext of marriage and, on such assurance, established physical relations with her. It is further alleged that when she later requested the applicant to marry her, he refused. Upon PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.28 13:09:07 +0530 2 receipt of the said written complaint, an FIR was registered against the present applicant, and during the course of investigation, he was arrested. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the victim is a major woman who was in a love relationship with the applicant. Over time, their relationship developed into a consensual physical relationship, and she has known the applicant for the past one year. It is argued that the relationship was entirely consensual, and when it could not culminate as desired, the present FIR was lodged. The learned counsel also submits that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is further pointed out that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 20.02.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. In light of these circumstances, the learned counsel prays that the applicant be granted regular bail. 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. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage, but later refused to marry her. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and period of detention in jail, and from the perusal of the statement, it transpires that the victim is a major woman who was in a love relationship with the applicant and she has known the applicant for the past one year, further the relationship was entirely consensual, and when it could not culminate as desired, the 3 present FIR was lodged, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case, the applicant has been in custody since 20.02.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant - Ritesh Pandey involved in CCrime No. 64/2026, registered at Police Station - Bodhghat, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of Bharartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 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, 4 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 for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/-- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti