1 CGHC010203732026 2026:CGHC:27773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 781 of 2026 Devanand Meher S/o Shri Jhsaketan Meher Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Khal Para, Manikpur Bade P.S. Saria, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh .Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Patan Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Shukla, PL Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/07/2026 1. This First anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 86/2026 registered at Police Station – Patan Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.07 13:06:04 +0530 2 2. The prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 29 years. As per the case diary, she came in contact with the applicant in the year 2023 while working as a field worker in Fusion Finance Company Limited, Branch Patan. It is alleged that a consensual relationship developed between the parties, which continued for about two and a half years. It is further alleged that the applicant promised to marry the prosecutrix and continued physical relations with her on that assurance. On 15.01.2026, the prosecutrix is stated to have visited the applicant’s village and met his family members. Thereafter, between 16.01.2026 to 25.01.2026, she remained in contact with the applicant, during which the alleged physical relations continued. It is further alleged that on 26.01.2026, the applicant discontinued contact and left the place. Thereafter, the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint on 25.02.2026, on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case arising out of a consensual relationship between the parties. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, being a major and well-educated woman, voluntarily developed a relationship with the applicant and remained in contact with him for a considerable period of about 2½ years. It is further submitted that the relationship was consensual and there was no initial dishonest intention on the part of the applicant. It is contended that there is no contemporaneous medical evidence, forensic material or independent witness supporting the allegations. It is also submitted that the FIR is delayed and appears to be an afterthought after the relationship soured. 3 Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation is not required, the applicant is a permanent resident having deep roots in society, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions imposed by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application and submits that serious allegations have been made against the applicant and the matter is under investigation. It is submitted that custodial interrogation may be required and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix and the applicant were known to each other and were in a relationship for a considerable period. The allegations pertain to promise of marriage and continuation of physical relations over a prolonged period. The case diary does not, at this stage, disclose any medical evidence, forensic material or independent witness to substantiate the allegations in support of the prosecution case. It also appears that the relationship between the parties continued for a substantial period, and the question whether the same was consensual in nature or vitiated by any fraudulent inducement is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated during trial. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of allegations, the long-standing relationship between the 4 parties, absence of strong corroborative material at this stage, and the fact that custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary, this Court is inclined to extend 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 – Devanand Meher, 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) he 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) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he 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 his 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) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Ashu