1 2026:CGHC:24439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5256 of 2026 Suresh Chopde S/o Late Mehattar Ram Aged About 65 Years Resident of Village Dundera, Police Station Utai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Durg (C.G.) Applicant / Accused ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Newai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 231/2026 registered at Police Station : Newai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m), 331(3) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim alleged that the applicant, who had been acquainted with her family for several years, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her for the first time on ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.06.18 17:59:16 +0530 2 25.05.2023 and thereafter repeatedly till 16.08.2025. On the basis of her written complaint dated 12.04.2026, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant/accused is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the prosecution story is highly improbable and suffers from serious delay, material contradictions, and improvements. As per the FIR as well as the statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the first alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 25.05.2023, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 12.04.2026 after an unexplained and inordinate delay of nearly three years. He also submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant are omnibus, vague, and general in nature. No specific particulars regarding the alleged repeated incidents, including the exact dates, circumstances, or any independent corroboration, have been disclosed by the victim. He submits that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. As per the medical examination report, no external or internal injury was found on the body of the victim, no signs suggestive of recent forcible sexual assault were noticed, and no definite medical opinion supporting forcible sexual intercourse has been given. The last alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 16.08.2025, whereas the medical examination was conducted on 12.04.2026 after a considerable delay. Therefore, the medical report does not connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He also submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 12.04.2026. As the conclusion of the trial may take some time, he therefore prays for the grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 3 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He submits that the victim has made specific allegations of repeated forcible sexual intercourse by the applicant from 25.05.2023 till 16.08.2025, pursuant to which the FIR came to be registered. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application. 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 and gravity of the offence, and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that the victim is a married woman and was a consenting party. Further, as per the medical examination report, no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the victim, no signs suggestive of recent forcible sexual assault were noticed, and no definite medical opinion supporting the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse has been rendered. Moreover, the charge- sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.04.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Let applicant, Suresh Chopde, involved in Crime No. 231/2026 registered at Police Station : Newai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m), 331(3) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 4 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, 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. 5 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek