1 2026:CGHC:22611 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 737 of 2026 Virendra Chandra Sonmaan S/o- Late Budhram Sonmaan, Aged About 45 Years Caste - Basor, R/o- Village- Cher, Police Station And Tehsil- Baikutthpur, District- Korea, C.G.(Wrongly Mentioned As Virendra Chand Sonmaan In Order Annexure- A/1) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of C.G. Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.05.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.116/2026 registered at Police Station – Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 138, 87, 351(3), 64(1), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. As per the prosecution story, the complainant, who is the husband of the victim, lodged a report on 07.04.2026 against an unknown KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 person alleging that, on the same day at about 11:00 AM, someone had kidnapped his wife. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered on 09.04.2026 from Village Dubchola. As per her statement, on 07.04.2026 at about 11:00 AM, when she was returning from the Anganwadi Centre, a white car came near her and a man forcibly made her sit inside the vehicle. Thereafter, she saw that the said person was the present applicant/accused, namely Virendra Chandra, whom she already knew. It is further alleged that the applicant took the victim to Pendra, where he committed rape upon her. The victim further stated that when the applicant came to know on 08.04.2026 that an FIR had been registered against him, he left her near Dubchola Triway. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, initially an FIR was registered against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the B.N.S. Subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the victim, the name of the present applicant was implicated and offences punishable under Sections 87, 351(3), 64(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. were also added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was earlier married to one Shivbhajan, however, due to matrimonial disputes and family reasons, she did not continue her marital life with him and thereafter started residing with the complainant namely Ashok Prajapati. Subsequently, she also started living separately from the complainant. He further submits that for the last 6-7 years, the victim had been residing with 3 the applicant in a live-in relationship as husband and wife and in support thereof, the victim had executed a notarized declaration dated 24.02.2023. It is further submitted that during the aforesaid period, the victim had visited several places along with the applicant and stayed with him in various lodges/hotels, where they had also taken photographs and videos together. He submits that after registration of the present FIR, the applicant approached the concerned lodges and obtained copies of the bills/receipts showing the names of both the applicant and the victim as occupants. Copies of the said receipts along with photographs have been filed as Annexure A/4 with the bail application. It is also submitted that several videos of the applicant and the victim together are available and the applicant reserves liberty to produce the same at the time of hearing, if so required. He submits that the aforesaid documents clearly demonstrate that the victim was in a long-standing consensual relationship with the applicant and, therefore, she was a consenting party. It is further contended that due to certain monetary and personal disputes between the parties and at the instance and pressure of her former husband/complainant, the victim has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. 4. He further submits that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was well known to the villagers as well as to the complainant himself. It is also argued that although the prosecution alleges that the applicant kidnapped the victim from said Village, took her to Pendra and committed rape upon her before leaving her at Dubchola, the victim is a married woman aged about 40 years 4 and she did not raise any alarm, resistance or objection at any point of time during the period from 07.04.2026 to 09.04.2026. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the allegations prima facie indicate that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and that the present case has been falsely concocted against him. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and the documents annexed with the application, he submits that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant and therefore, in the event of his arrest, no useful purpose would be served except causing undue hardship to the applicant and his family. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that there are serious allegations against the present applicant. It is submitted that the victim, in her statement recorded during the course of investigation, has specifically alleged that the applicant forcibly kidnapped her and committed rape upon her. She further submits that the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required for proper investigation of the matter. It is also submitted that the offences alleged against the applicant are grave and serious in nature and, therefore, he is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and further considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein it appears that the victim is a married woman and was in a consensual relationship with the applicant for a considerable period and had allegedly been residing with him in a live-in relationship and also considering the documents filed by the applicant including the notarized declaration as well as the bills/receipts of Mahamaya Lodge, Pendra showing that the applicant and the victim had stayed together there on multiple occasions, coupled with the photographs annexed with the application and further considering the submission that after the husband of the victim came to know about their relationship, the present FIR came to be lodged at his instance thus, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Virendra Chandra Sonmaan, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on anticipatory 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. 6 (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 their 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/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal