1 CGHC010326562026 2026:CGHC:38174 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1408 of 2026 Hem Singh Rajput S/o Late Shri Roshan Singh Rajput Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhawani Nagar, Kota Police Station- Saraswati Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL. For Objector : Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.166/2026 registered at Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.26 14:15:11 +0530 2 Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written complaint was filed by the complainant before P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur on 02.08.2026, wherein she alleged that she came in contact with Hem Singh Rajput through Facebook in November 2025, and during their conversation she alleged that, applicant assured her that applicant would marry her. It is further alleged that, on 12.11.2025, they started communicating regularly regarding marriage. Thereafter, applicant sent his sister Hemlata with the complainant to Ujjain on 01.12.2025, stating that she should know his sister well. After darshan, they returned towards Raipur and reached Tatibandh Chowk on 06.12.2025, where applicant received them and took the complainant to his house. Thereafter, on 07.12.2025, applicant took the complainant to Wennington Court, Raipur, where he stayed with her and continued the relationship on the assurance of marriage. The complainant further alleged that marriage between them was subsequently finalised, and she visited Ujjain with applicant and his mother in April 2026 and stayed at his house for about 15 days in June 2026. She also alleged that, when she informed applicant on 25.07.2026 about her pregnancy and requested him to marry her, he refused to marry her and thereafter allegedly pressurised and threatened her to terminate the pregnancy. On the bases of aforesaid complaint an FIR No. 166/2026 dated 6/08/2026 has been registered by the police station Saraswati Nagar under 3 section 69 of BNS 2023 against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that allegations levelled against the applicant are vague, omnibus and devoid of material particulars. Prima facie case not made out against the applicant, that the present case arises out of a consensual love relationship between the applicant and the complainant, and there was no deceitful or fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant from the very inception of the relationship. The essential ingredients of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not attracted merely because a relationship subsequently failed to culminate in marriage. The relation between the present applicant and complainant became sour with the time which culminated into registration of FIR. The applicant never induced the complainant into the relationship by making a false promise of marriage with no intention of fulfilling the same. The allegations have been made with an intention to give a criminal colour to an otherwise consensual love affair. On 12.11.2025, the applicant and the complainant came into contact with each other through the social media platform Facebook, and their acquaintance gradually developed into a romantic relationship. The complainant, being a resident of District Korba, Chhattisgarh, frequently visited the applicant's residence despite the distance of approximately 250 kilometres between them. The 4 relationship between the parties was known to their respective families, which further demonstrates that the relationship was neither clandestine nor founded upon any deceitful representation. During the period of their acquaintance and relationship, the applicant never concealed any material fact from the complainant and had clearly apprised his personal circumstances. The applicant did not make any false promise of marriage with a dishonest intention from the inception of the relationship. Despite the circumstances known to her, the complainant continued the relationship with the applicant without there being any promise by the applicant to marry with the complainant. The parties continued their relationship for more than nine months with mutual consent, which prima facie indicates the consensual nature of their relationship and negates any allegation of deceitful inducement to marry each other. Therefore the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the Objector vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim has stated that on 12.11.2025 she had a chatting with the present applicant on Facebook. Thereafter they had a regular 5 talks on phone. During this period, the applicant promised her to marry. On 1.12.2025, she came to Bilaspur from Korba. Thereafter the victim and the present applicant went to Ujjain on 2.12.2025 where they stayed in a hotel. Thereafter they went to Sehore and on 6.12.2025 they reached Raipur. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the applicant and the victim were in consensual relationship for a substantial period, on account of which they established physical relationship, wherein victim was the consenting party and when their relationship could not be materialized, victim has lodged the FIR just to harass the applicant and also considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Hem Singh Rajput, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) He should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He should not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he should appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 6 (d) The Applicant and the sureties shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He should not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Barve