1 CGHC010228112026 2026:CGHC:31268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5552 of 2026 Poonam Chand Prajapati Son Of Jogi Ram Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village Birgudi, Police Station Sihawa, Tahsil Belargaon, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Nagari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smita Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Ravikar Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 29/2026, registered at Police Station : Nagari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 351(2) of the BNS. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.07.23 11:03:26 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the basis of written report made by the victim, the FIR was registered against the applicant and in the written report, it is alleged against the applicant is that the victim in the search of job came to Raipur and resided at Girls Hostel Raipur and she was working in the cloth shop and she came into contact of applicant through social media and thereafter both of them talk to each other frequently for the period of 06 months and they both exchanged the mobile number and the victim went to Telibandha Raipur to meet the applicant and thereafrer the victim went along with applicant to New Raipur and thereafter the applicant drooped the victim at Raipur and after 15 days, the applicant called the victim and asked the victim that he is going to Dhamtari, you may also come and thereafter the victim came to Dhamtari and the applicant took the victim to the house of her friend and established physical relationship with the victim at number of occasions and when the victim asked the applicant to perform the marriage, the applicant stated that he is already married person, therefore he cannot perform the marriage. On the basis of report lodged by victim, the FIR was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not acted in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that the material collected during the investigation indicates that the prosecutrix, a major aged about 23 years, voluntarily accompanied the applicant from Raipur to Dhamtari and remained in a relationship with him for a considerable period despite being aware that the applicant 3 was a married man. According to the applicant, the relationship between the parties was consensual. It is further submitted that the MLC of the prosecutrix, conducted on 23.04.2026, records no signs of use of force and merely suggests sexual activity without any definite opinion regarding its time or duration. The applicant also points out that, as per the prosecutrix's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the last physical relationship was on 13.03.2026, which, according to the applicant, does not fully align with the medical opinion and is a matter to be appreciated during trial. The applicant is 36 years of age and has remained in judicial custody since 21.03.2026. As the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and further custodial detention is not warranted, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposed the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant repeatedly subjected the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. It is further submitted that when the prosecutrix approached the concerned Police Station to lodge the FIR, the Station House Officer allegedly assaulted her and compelled her to withdraw the complaint, whereafter she approached the Commissioner of Police by filing a complaint dated 17.04.2026, pursuant to whose directions the FIR came to be registered. It is also 4 contended that the applicant is an influential and financially well-off person and has previously committed several acts against the prosecutrix. Therefore, if released on bail, there is a reasonable apprehension that he may threaten or influence the prosecutrix. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegations, learned counsel for the objector prayed that the present bail application be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the material available on record, including the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which prima facie indicate that the victim, being a major, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, during which a physical relationship was established and thereafter the relationship could not materialize, leading to the lodging of the present FIR, and further taking into account that the applicant has been in custody since 23.04.2026 and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let applicant, Poonam Chand Prajapati, involved in Crime No. 29/2026, registered at Police Station : Nagari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 351(2) of the BNS, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 5 (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 his 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 BNSS. 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 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) 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. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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 Vaibhav