1 CGHC010206882026 2026:CGHC:29055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4849 of 2026 Manish Giri Goswami S/o Rajkumar Doman Giri Goswami Aged About 34 Years R/o New Changorabhata, Karan Nagar Raipur, P. S. D. D. Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 10.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2026, registered at Police Station- Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) and 238 of the BNS. 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint/information, the concerned Police Station registered the present crime against the accused persons for the alleged commission of the offences in question. During investigation, the police collected oral and documentary evidence, recorded the statements of witnesses, effected the necessary seizures, and upon completion of the investigation, found sufficient material against the accused. Consequently, a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, where the case is presently pending for trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent. It is contended that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.04.2026 and the investigation has already been completed with the filing of the charge-sheet, therefore, his further custodial detention is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the prosecution case suffers from material infirmities inasmuch as there is delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence does not establish the allegations against the applicant. It is further argued that the applicant and victim were known to each other and the victim herself ran away with the applicant, which goes to show that she was a consenting party and when the relationship between the applicant and victim could not be materialized, the victim lodged the present case just in order to pressurize the present applicant hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the applicant. It is contended that the victim has consistently stated in her statement that the applicant established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature, the statements of the victim are duly corroborated by the material collected during investigation, and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the prima facie evidence available against the applicant, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that the victim and the applicant were in consensual relationship, on account of which, the victim ran away with the applicant and resided with her for 22 days wherein, they established physical relationship, which goes to show that the victim was the consenting party and when their relationship could not materialize, victim lodged present FIR against the applicant to harass him, charge-sheet has already been filed and is languishing in jail since 15.04.2026 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the view that 4 the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Manish Giri Goswami, involved in Crime No. 38/2026, registered at Police Station- Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(m) and 238 of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) 5 opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil