1 CGHC010269602026 2026:CGHC:33624 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6392 of 2026 Satendra Kumar Saket S/o Tulsi Das Saket Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khamriha Tola Mahadeva P.S. Manda District- Singrauli (M.P.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Chandani, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. HON’BLE SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE Order on Board 03/08/2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this 1st Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/2026 registered at Police SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.08.03 18:08:46 +0530 2 Station – Chandani, District: Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC. 2. That, the nutshell case of the prosecution as alleged by the prosecutrix is that she is resident of village-Kuberpur and accused Satendra used to visit her village which happens to be his maternal home, and due to this, she was acquainted with him and they used to talk to each other on phone. That on 13.01.2024, Satendra called her and asked to meet her in the evening around 7:30 pm and said that he loves her and wants to marry her whereby she fell for his words and Satendra Saket took her behind her house at the field and committed sexual intercourse and since then till March 2024, he has been continuously involved in this physical act and has committed aforesaid offence. That when she asked him to marry her, he said that he will only marry her if her father gives him good amount of dowry, and later he used to talk to her till June 2024 after which he stopped talking to the prosecutrix. Being jittered by the act of the accused who later refused to marry the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the applicant. On the basis of the said report, the present crime was registered, leading to the filing of the present bail application. Hence this application. 3 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in custody since 21.05.2026. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false, concocted, and have been made with an ulterior motive after the relationship between the parties came to an end. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix and the applicant were well acquainted with each other prior to the alleged incident, which indicates that they shared a pre-existing relationship. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred continuously from March 2024; however, the FIR has been lodged only on 20.05.2026, and the prosecution has failed to provide any plausible explanation for such an inordinate delay. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the prosecutrix and the applicant were in a relationship since 2024, coupled with the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 21.05.2026, it is further observed that the charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let Applicant- Satendra Kumar Saket, involved in Crime No. 44/2026 registered at Police Station – Chandani, District: Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC 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 5 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. 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 Saurabh