1 2026:CGHC:23050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3370 of 2026 Ravi Shankar Kashyap S/o Har Prasad Kashyap, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Budena, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 96/2026, registered at Police Station : Bhatapara (City), District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix, aged about 30 years, VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.05.15 18:32:31 +0530 2 lodged a written report alleging that the applicant, presently posted at his office at Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, was known to her since the year 2017 and both were in regular contact through mobile conversations. During the course of their acquaintance, the prosecutrix visited Sheorinarayan at the instance of the applicant and accompanied him to his native village. It is alleged that thereafter their intimacy gradually developed and the applicant allegedly promised to marry the prosecutrix. On the basis of such promise, from the year 2019 till October 2024, when the prosecutrix was residing in a rented house at Bhatapara, the applicant frequently visited her residence during October-November and established physical relations with her. It is further alleged that after the applicant’s transfer to Bilaspur in the year 2023, where he started residing at Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, the prosecutrix used to visit Bilaspur and during this period also the applicant established physical relations with her. Subsequently, the prosecutrix came to know that the applicant had become engaged to another woman, and when she confronted him, the applicant allegedly informed her that marriage between them was not possible. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR at Police Station Bhatapara (City), District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). The matter is presently under investigation, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed, and the applicant has been in judicial custody since 22.03.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. t is submitted that considering the long-standing relationship between the applicant and the 3 prosecutrix, which allegedly commenced in the year 2017, and the fact that the prosecutrix is a major woman aged about 30 years, fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions, coupled with the fact that the report has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about nine years, it cannot be ruled out that the relationship between the parties was consensual. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is older than the applicant by about 2–3 years and is a mature person having full knowledge and understanding of the circumstances and implications of the relationship. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and therefore there is no likelihood of his absconding or interfering with the due process of law. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation/trial, is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety, and shall abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting him the concession of bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim, 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 material available on record, particularly the fact that the prosecutrix, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant during which physical 4 relations were established, and thereafter the relationship could not culminate into marriage, leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and further taking into consideration that the applicant has been in custody since 23.03.2026 and that the trial is likely to take considerable 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. 7. Let applicant, Ravi Shankar Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 96/2026, registered at Police Station : Bhatapara (City), District Balouda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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. 5 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav