1 2026:CGHC:24966 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 899 of 2026 Mrigendra Kumar Kenwat S/o Shri Domari Prasad Kenwat Aged About 26 Years R/o House No. -304, Ward No. -12, Nayatoal Kevtar Laharpur P.S. Jaithari District Anuppur Madhya Pradesh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Marwahi District Gaurella Pendra Marwahi C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.06.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 60/2026 registered at Police Station – Marwahi, District - Gaurella-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhtia, 2023. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that the victim lodged a report alleging that during the period when her husband was lodged in jail, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 she came into contact with the applicant and both started communicating over the phone. It is alleged that in the year 2019, the applicant expressed his love for the victim and, on the promise of marrying her, established physical relations with her. Thereafter, the applicant is alleged to have maintained a physical relationship with the victim on several occasions. It is further alleged that on 26.01.2026, the applicant last had sexual intercourse with the victim, as a result of which she became pregnant. The victim has further alleged that when her husband was released and came to take her back, the applicant refused to accept her and subsequently informed her that his marriage had been fixed with another woman. It is also alleged that the applicant thereafter stopped communicating with the victim and blocked her phone number. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR has been registered against the applicant, apprehending arrest in connection therewith, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the victim is a married woman having a subsisting marriage and children aged about 12 years, and therefore the allegation that she was induced into a relationship on the false promise of marriage is inherently improbable. It is further submitted that the victim is approximately six years older than the applicant and is a mature adult fully aware of the nature and consequences of her actions. He further submits that, as per the prosecution case 3 itself, the alleged relationship continued from the year 2019 till January, 2026, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 04.04.2026 without any plausible explanation for such inordinate delay, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations. It is also argued that no false promise of marriage was ever made by the applicant and that the relationship, if any, was purely consensual in nature. It is also submitted that no recovery is to be effected from him. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents. Therefore he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application of the applicant and submits that the victim has made specific and consistent allegations against the applicant that he established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and continued to exploit her for a prolonged period. It is submitted that the applicant induced the victim to maintain a physical relationship by assuring her of marriage and ultimately refused to marry her after she became pregnant, thereby attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. Therefore, considering the gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory 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 allegations, the material available on record, and the submissions 4 advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the victim is a major, married and mature woman having a subsisting marriage and children and as per the prosecution case itself, the parties remained in a relationship for a considerable period from the year 2019 till January, 2026, whereas the FIR came to be lodged only on 04.04.2026. The age, maturity and marital status of the victim, coupled with the prolonged nature of the relationship, prima facie indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual and involved two consenting adults. Therefore, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Mrigendra Kumar Kenwat, 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:- (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. 5 (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of her 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 Rahul Dewangan