1 / 5 2026:CGHC:25489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 918 of 2026 Yogesh Kumar Dadsena S/o Motilal Dadsena Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Baradoli, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 22.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 81/2026, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.06.23 11:56:45 +0530 2 / 5 offence punishable under Sections 64 & 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the FIR was lodged by the victim, who is aged about 29 years against the applicant alleging inter-alia that on 08-03-2026, the applicant forcefully established relationship and prepared the video of the same. It is further alleged that the son of victim was slipping at the place of incident and the applicant threatened the victim if she will make a noise the present applicant kill her son. It is further alleged that the applicant informed the husband of the victim. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is contended that the prosecution story itself reveals that the applicant and the prosecutrix were acquainted with each other and had developed a relationship prior to her marriage, and that they remained in contact even thereafter. Learned counsel submits that the allegations regarding the physical relationship are matters requiring appreciation of evidence during trial and that the circumstances, as reflected in the statement of the prosecutrix, prima facie indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged due to pressure exerted by the husband of the prosecutrix after he came to know about the alleged relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and that the present case has been 3 / 5 falsely fabricated to implicate the applicant. Learned counsel also submits that no offence has been registered against the applicant under the Information Technology Act and no material has been collected during investigation to demonstrate that the applicant prepared or circulated any obscene video of the prosecutrix. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the application, has deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant forcibly established physical relations with the victim and threatened to kill her son if she disclosed the incident. It is further submitted that the allegations are supported by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded during investigation. Learned State Counsel also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 / 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the statement of the prosecutrix, and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the prosecutrix has made specific allegations that the applicant forcibly established physical relations with her, prepared a video of the incident, and threatened to kill her son in the event she disclosed the occurrence. At this stage, the allegations are supported by the material available on record and cannot be disbelieved. It is also significant that the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant as an absconder, which prima facie indicates that he had evaded the process of law. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the conduct of the applicant, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Yogesh Kumar Dadsena, involved in Crime No. 81/2026, registered at Police Station – Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 64 & 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to 5 / 5 proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav