1 2026:CGHC:5783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.163 of 2026 Solomon Arland S/o Deniyal Arland Aged About 32 Years R/o - LIG - 532, Ward No. 45, Padmanabhpur, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, PL. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.03 14:52:28 +0530 2 with Crime No.6/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Bhilai, for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 115(2) and 351(3)of BNS, 2023. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhilai, District Durg, alleging that she is a divorced woman who entered into a relationship with the present applicant on his assurance of marriage. It is alleged that the applicant later refused to marry her, assaulted her, and threatened to kill her minor child. According to the prosecutrix, the alleged incidents took place between 21.02.2025 and 27.12.2025, though the FIR was lodged on 11.01.2026. She stated that she was previously married in 2016, has a nine-year-old daughter, and obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 18.02.2025. It is further alleged that after the divorce, the prosecutrix and the applicant were in an emotional and business relationship, and when she insisted on marriage after about one year, the applicant refused, therefore, the aforesaid offence has been registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix. It is contended that the prosecutrix is a 38-year-old divorced woman having a child, she had filed an application for divorce 3 from her earlier husband and was granted divorce in the year 2025 and thereafter, she voluntarily developed a physical relationship with the applicant. It is further submitted that merely because the applicant subsequently refused to marry her, the present false case has been lodged against him. Learned counsel further submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the relationship between the parties was purely consensual in nature. It is also contended that during the said period, the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the prosecutrix under an agreement to repay the same within a stipulated period and in order to avoid repayment of the said amount, a false and concocted story has been set up against the applicant. It is, therefore, submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and he deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that the allegations are serious in nature. She further submits that the prosecutrix was subjected to physical exploitation on the false promise of marriage and the statement under Section 161 CrPC supports the prosecution case and custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the case diary, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the nature of relationship between the parties and the delay in lodging the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to allow the application and that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Solomon Arland, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The Applicant 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) The Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The Applicant 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 their adhaar card alongwith a colored 5 postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e)The Applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Priya