1 CGHC010310362026 2026:CGHC:35622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7392 of 2026 Vikram Netam S/o Mainuram Netam Aged About 32 Years R/o - Village - Udanpur, Police Station - Koyalibeda, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Koylibeda, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 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.03/2026, registered at Police Station – Koylibeda, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, is that the present applicant made sexual relationship with the victim. It is alleged by the victim that the present accused/applicant made sexual relationship with her last few months. On the said act of the accused/applicant the victim lodged a written report to the Police Station - Koyalibeda, District - Uttar Bastar PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.13 17:08:19 +0530 2 Kanker (C.G.). On the said report of the victim, the police of Police Station registered the offence punishable under section 69 of B.N.S. against the present accused/applicant and investigation has been completed, then Police Station - Koyalibeda, District -Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) has been filed the charge sheet before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim was a major on the date of the alleged incident and was in a consensual love relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the victim had a love affair with the applicant and was willing to be in a relationship with him. Pursuant to their love affair and after attaining the age of majority, the victim voluntarily engaged in a physical relationship with the applicant. The victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and resided with him at various places, and they lived together as husband and wife. The sexual relationship between the applicant and the victim continued for several months and was consensual. The statement of the victim also indicates that she accompanied the applicant voluntarily and of her own free will and resided with him as his wife. Thus, the circumstances prima-facie indicate that the relationship was consensual. On this ground also, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained and considerable delay from the date of the alleged incident. No plausible explanation for such delay has been offered by the prosecution. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts doubt upon the prosecution case and indicates that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.03.2026. The conclusion of the trial is likely to 3 take a considerable time. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the applicant be released on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. He further submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, the applicant and the victim have known each other since 2024 and that the applicant established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage. It is further submitted that the applicant subsequently married another girl. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary and other material available on record, it appears that the victim is a major, the applicant and the victim have known each other since 2024 and the parties were admittedly in a relationship for a considerable period, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 02.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant - Vikram Netam involved in Crime No.03/2026, registered at Police Station – Koylibeda, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be 4 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 5 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 Preeti