1 CGHC010280592026 2026:CGHC:31466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6639 of 2026 Filimon @ Filiman Sanful S/o Bijay Sanful Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Ukiyapali Old, R/o Village Ukiyapali Baragaon, Police Station Kodenga, District Nabarangpur O.D. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nangur, District Bastar C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 23.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station : Nangur, District Bastar, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, is that the victim, a widow residing at Village Kakarwada, Dumarguda Para, Police Station Nangur, District Bastar, along with her minor son, was employed at RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Binaka Mall, Reliance, Jagdalpur. The applicant, who is stated to be the maternal cousin of the victim, was working at a polythene shop in Jagdalpur and was residing at his maternal aunt’s house in the same village. It is alleged that, as both the applicant and the victim used to travel together regularly from their village to Jagdalpur for work, they developed a close relationship, which subsequently resulted in physical relations between them. The prosecution further alleges that in January 2026, the applicant left the village and went to Odisha. Thereafter, on 30.01.2026, the victim informed the applicant over a telephone call that she had missed her menstrual cycle and suspected that she was pregnant. It is alleged that upon receiving such information, the applicant initially assured the victim that he would return by 02.02.2026; however, he neither returned nor maintained contact with her and allegedly blocked her phone number, thereby avoiding further communication. Alleging that the applicant had established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage and subsequently refused to fulfill the said promise, the victim lodged a report with the police. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime was registered against the applicant, who was subsequently arrested. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the material available on record, particularly the testimony of the victim recorded before the learned Trial Court, clearly demonstrates that the relationship between the parties was 3 longstanding, voluntary and consensual in nature. He submits that the victim is a major woman aged about 34 years and was fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. It is further submitted that the victim, in her deposition, has admitted that she voluntarily resided with the applicant in a rented accommodation at Jagdalpur for about six to seven months and that physical relations were established between them with her free consent during the said period. He argues that at no point during their cohabitation did the victim lodge any complaint with the police, the landlord or any other authority. It is further submitted that the victim has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she was aware from the very beginning that the applicant was her close relative and that marriage between them was unlikely or difficult on account of their familial relationship. Therefore, it is contended that the allegation that the victim consented to the relationship solely on the basis of a promise of marriage is not borne out from her own testimony. He further submits that there is no direct or cogent evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offence and that the prosecution case substantially rests upon the allegations made by the victim. It is also argued that although the victim allegedly came to know about her pregnancy in January 2026 and claims that the applicant thereafter avoided her, the FIR came to be lodged only on 28.02.2026, thereby indicating an unexplained delay in setting the criminal law into motion. He further points out that the victim, who is the star witness of the prosecution, has already been fully examined and cross-examined before the Trial Court and, 4 therefore, her testimony stands secured on record, leaving no possibility of her being influenced or intimidated by the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 06.04.2026, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the applicant is accused of committing a serious offence against the victim by establishing physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and thereafter abandoning her when she informed him about her pregnancy. It is contended that the material collected during the course of investigation, including the statements of the victim and other witnesses, prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. She submits that the victim has consistently stated that the applicant induced her into a physical relationship by assuring her that he would marry her and subsequently reneged on the said promise. It is further argued that immediately after learning about the victim’s pregnancy, the applicant deliberately avoided her, blocked her phone number and severed all communication, thereby demonstrating his dishonest intention. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the impact of the offence on the victim, and the prima facie material 5 available on record, she prays that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature of allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the victim is a major woman aged about 34 years, the admitted position emerging from her deposition that she and the applicant were in a longstanding relationship and had voluntarily cohabited together for about six to seven months, the specific admission of the victim that physical relations were established with her consent, and her further admission that she was aware that the applicant was her close relative and that marriage between them was unlikely on account of their familial relationship. Further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 06.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant, Filimon @ Filiman Sanful, involved in Crime No. 13/2026 registered at Police Station : Nangur, District Bastar, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like 6 amount 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 him 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 7 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan