1 CGHC010314512026 2026:CGHC:36907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7651 of 2026 Ritesh Kumar S/o Late Ramji Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Mudpar, P. S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 222/2026 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim came into contact with the applicant/accused through Instagram in December 2025, and they started communicating with each other. During their conversations, the applicant expressed that he liked her and wanted to marry her, following which they started meeting each other. It is alleged that on 08.02.2026, the applicant took the victim to Mangal Bhawan, Kharaud, and, despite her refusal, established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, he allegedly continued to have physical relations with her from 07.02.2026 to 06.07.2026. When the victim asked him to marry her, the applicant refused to marry her and stopped communicating with her. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 222/2026 was registered at Police Station Shivrinaraayan for an offence under Section 69 of the BNS, and the applicant/accused was arrested on 14.07.2026. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the victim is a major girl and that she had been acquainted with the applicant since December 2025, they were in a consensual relationship since then and, pursuant thereto, established a physical relationship, wherein the victim was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 14.07.2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the 3 applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the allegation against the applicant is that he developed a relationship with the victim through Instagram, induced her to enter into a physical relationship by promising to marry her, and despite her refusal, established physical relations with her. The applicant continued the physical relationship for several months and subsequently refused to marry her and stopped communicating with her. Therefore the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 14.07.2026, the fact that though the applicant allegedly developed a relationship with the victim through Instagram, induced her into physical relations on the promise of marriage, continued the relationship for several months, and thereafter refused to marry her and stopped communicating with her, but considering the fact that victim is a major girl and that she had been acquainted with the applicant since December 2025, they were in a consensual relationship since then and, pursuant thereto, established a physical relationship, wherein the victim 4 was a consenting party and later on when their relationship could not materialized, victim lodged the present FIR against the applicant, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Ritesh Kumar, involved in Crime No. 222/2026 registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of 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 5 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 for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil