1 2026:CGHC:22585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4475 of 2026 Santosh Singh S/o Dashrath Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Palka, P.S. And Tehsil Udaipur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13/05/2026 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. 120/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, aged about 20 years, came into contact with the applicant/accused in the year 2024 while working at a brick kiln, where the accused allegedly developed a relationship with her and established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage. It is alleged that the accused continued to maintain physical relations with the victim at various places on the same assurance, as a result of which she became pregnant in November 2025. Thereafter, though the accused initially assured her that he would accept the child and marry her, he subsequently refused to do so and denied paternity of the child. On the written complaint lodged by the victim on 23.02.2026, the present crime was registered against the accused, and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 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 the victim is a major girl aged about 20 years and was acquainted with the applicant since 2024. During the said period, the applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship, wherein victim was a consenting party and, on account thereof, they established physical relations with each other, and the victim became 3 pregnant, when their relationship could not materialize into marriage, the victim lodged the present FIR against the applicant with an intention to harass him. The applicant is in jail since 24.02.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, 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. She further submits that the applicant established physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage and continued the same on such assurance, as a result of which she became pregnant, and later the applicant refused to marry her and denied paternity of the child. 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 24.02.2026, the fact that though the applicant established physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage and continued the same on such assurance, as a result of which she became pregnant, and later the applicant refused to marry her and denied paternity of the child, but considering the fact that victim is a major girl aged about 20 years and was acquainted 4 with the applicant since 2024, during the said period, the applicant and the victim were in a consensual relationship, wherein victim was a consenting party and, on account thereof, they established physical relations with each other and the victim became pregnant, when their relationship could not materialize into marriage, the victim lodged the present FIR against the applicant, further considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 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-Santosh Singh, involved in Crime No. 120/2026 registered at Police Station Kotwali Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 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 5 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, 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