1 CGHC010290542026 2026:CGHC:33163 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6905 of 2026 Dushyant Kumar Brij S/o Budhram Brij Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram Barseras Uramapal P.O. Chhindgarh, District Sukma C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhindgarh, District – Sukma, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39/2026, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh, District – Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 61(1), 127(2), 296 and 351(3) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim aged about 21 years, was employed as a Customer Care Executive in a microfinance company. It is alleged that about 15 days prior to the alleged incident, RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 she received a phone call from the present applicant, on her mobile phone. During the conversation, the applicant did not disclose how he had Lobtained her mobile number. Thereafter, the applicant informed the victim that he knew her from her former colleagues, who used to worked with her in the same company. Subsequently the applicant developed acquaintance with the victim and continued to interact with her over mobile phone. 3. It is alleged that the applicant expressed his love and assured her to marry the victim and persuaded her to meet him at Jagdalpur on 17.06.2026, where they met and thereafter remained in regular telephonic contact. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly persuaded the victim to come to Chhindgarh on the assurance that he would introduce her to his parents before their marriage. On reaching Chhindgarh, instead of taking her to his parents' house, the applicant allegedly took her to the residential quarter of one Dr. Barse, where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. It is further alleged that when the victim attempted to leave, the applicant wrongfully confined her in the room. Thereafter, the victim informed the Police authority, Sukma, through a WhatsApp call, pursuant to which the police reached the spot and rescued her. The applicant is also alleged to have abused and threatened the victim with dire consequences if she disclosed the incident. On the basis of her report, the present FIR was registered against the applicant on 30.06.2026 and he has been arrested. Hence, this application. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is 3 submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 21 years and there was some affair between the applicant and the victim, thereafter, a consensual sexual relationship was established between both of them, but the relationship could not be materialized, hence, she lodged the FIR and she was the consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 30.06.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed forcibly sexual intercourse with the victim. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 6. Learned counsel for the Objector has raised no objection to the bail application of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation leveled against the applicant and period of detention in jail, further the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 21 years and there was some affair between the applicant and the victim, thereafter, a consensual sexual relationship was established between both of them, but the relationship could not be materialized, hence, she lodged the FIR and she was the consenting party, moreover, the Objector has raised no objection to the bail application of the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 30.06.2026 and the 4 conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 9. Let applicant – Dushyant Kumar Brij, involved in Crime No. 39/2026, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh, District – Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 61(1), 127(2), 296 and 351(3) 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 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 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. 5 10. 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 Rajshekhar