1 2026:CGHC:27429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1017 of 2026 Rahul Kumar Jha S/o Naveen Jha, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village And Post Gangapur, Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 03.07.2026 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. 45/2026 registered at Police Station – Hardibazar, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhtia, 2023. 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that on 29.03.2026, the victim lodged a written report alleging that her husband had died in the year 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, she started RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 working as a C.R.E. at Singh Auto Centre Private Limited, situated at Saraishringar, where she remained posted from 23.09.2023 to 21.10.2025 and resided at Saraishringar along with her two children. During the course of her employment, she came into contact with the present applicant, who was posted in the same company as an Advisor. It is alleged that the applicant, on the false promise and assurance of marriage, established physical relations with the victim on several occasions and, thereafter, refused to marry her. On the basis of the said written report, the police registered the alleged offence against the applicant. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has not committed any act in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the victim’s husband had died in the year 2021 due to the COVID- 19 pandemic, and thereafter she started residing independently with her two children. The applicant and the victim remained in a relationship from 23.09.2023 to 21.10.2025, during which they established physical relations on several occasions with the free will and consent of the victim. It is contended that the victim is a major lady aged about 39 years and the mother of two children, fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. Despite being aware of all the circumstances, she voluntarily continued the relationship with the applicant for a considerable period of time without any coercion, threat or 3 inducement. Therefore, prima facie, the case is one of a consensual relationship between two consenting adults, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against the applicant. 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 applicant, by inducing the victim with a false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her on several occasions and, after exploiting her for a considerable period, refused to marry her. The victim has consistently supported the prosecution case in her written complaint as well as during the course of investigation, and the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the question whether the relationship was consensual or whether the promise of marriage was false from its inception is a matter of evidence to be determined during trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail. 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. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the victim is a major lady aged about 39 years, whose husband had died in the year 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and she is the mother of two children. The record further reveals that after coming into contact while working in the same company, the applicant and the victim remained in a relationship from 23.09.2023 to 21.10.2025 and established physical relations on several occasions. Prima facie, the relationship appears to be a prolonged consensual relationship between two consenting adults. Whether the alleged promise of marriage was false from its inception and whether the victim’s consent was vitiated are matters to be adjudicated during trial. 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 – Rahul Kumar Jha, 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 5 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 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