1 2026:CGHC:24773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 877 of 2026 Sameer Oraon S/o Late M.K. Oraon Aged About 41 Years Profession Court Advocate At C.G. High Court R/o Of V-19, Rama Life City Sakri Distirct Bilaspur C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Sakri Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya and Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, G.A. Objector/Complainant : Ms. Sonjila Kalko, in person Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18.06.2026 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 with Crime No. 509/2026 registered at Police Station – Sakri District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.06.2026, the prosecutrix appeared before Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, and submitted a written complaint stating that she had come into contact with the Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.06.19 14:45:28 +0530 2 applicant/accused through an online gaming platform. Thereafter, conversations ensued between them. It is alleged that the accused, on the pretext of marrying her, established physical relations with the prosecutrix on 17.05.2026 at Hotel Emerald, Sakri, Bilaspur. It is further alleged that subsequently, the prosecutrix repeatedly requested the accused to marry her; however, the accused refused to do so and threatened her by stating that she could do whatever she wanted. On the basis of the said written complaint, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 509/2026 was registered against the applicant/accused at Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the victim is aged about 30 years, the applicant and the victim had voluntarily developed consensual relation with each other. However, their relationship could not relation culminate in marriage. It is further submitted that the conduct of the victim is doubtful and raises suspicion, as she appears to have been a consenting party throughout the relationship. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage. Hence, this anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Learned complainant appearing in person opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the applicant/accused, despite being a married person, deliberately concealed his marital status and induced 3 the complainant to enter into a relationship on the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that the accused repeatedly established physical relations with the complainant by misrepresenting that he would marry her and thereafter abandoned her upon disclosure of his existing marriage. Therefore, she prays that this anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the case diary, and particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that the victim is a major girl aged about 26 years and it prima facie also appears that both the applicant and the victim were acquainted with each other through an online gaming platform and thereafter remained in a relationship for a considerable period. The victim herself has stated that they travelled together to different places and stayed together on several occasions in various cities in hotels etc. The allegations reveal that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and whether the promise of marriage was false from its inception or whether the relationship subsequently failed to culminate in marriage are matters which would require detailed examination during trial. Considering the age of the prosecutrix, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Sameer Oraon on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 4 (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 along with a coloured 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 Jyoti