1 2026:CGHC:16450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 517 of 2026 Rishabh Yadav S/o Shri Chandrashekhar Yadav Aged About 29 Years R/o Behind Sohaga Temple, Brahman, Para, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Purani Basti, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09/04/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 27/2026 registered at Police Station – Purani Basti, District- MADHURIMA THAKUR Digitally signed by MADHURIMA THAKUR Date: 2026.04.10 15:53:01 +0530 2 Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint at Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur, on the basis of which Crime No. 27/2026 has been registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. As per the prosecution, the applicant and the prosecutrix were known to each other as they resided in the same locality, and their acquaintance gradually developed into a love relationship. It is alleged that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage and by making representations regarding his financial status and employment, gained the trust of the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that on 18.02.2023, the applicant took the prosecutrix to a hotel near Shakti Mandir, Raipur, and established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly continued to maintain physical relations with the prosecutrix for a considerable period on the assurance that he would marry her. The prosecution further alleges that subsequently the applicant started avoiding the prosecutrix, refused to marry her, and also extended threats and made derogatory remarks against her and her family. It is also alleged that on 13.12.2025, the applicant again called the prosecutrix to a hotel at Bhathagaon, Raipur, and established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. Subsequently, when the matter came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix’s family, disputes 3 arose in her family, and her mother allegedly attempted suicide by consuming poison. When the prosecutrix informed the applicant about the same, he refused to take responsibility and denied having any relationship with her. On the basis of the said allegations, FIR was registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant. 3. It is argued that the dispute between the parties arose subsequently due to differences relating to marriage, particularly on account of objection raised by the family members of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was willing to marry the prosecutrix; however, due to social and familial constraints, the relationship could not culminate into marriage. It is further submitted that earlier also a complaint was made by the prosecutrix, which was amicably resolved at the police station level, and thereafter there was no communication between the parties for some time. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, indicate a consensual relationship and the essential ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out. It is submitted that the present FIR has been lodged out of anger and frustration after breakdown of the relationship. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Gobra Navapara, District Raipur, aged about 29 years, and has roots in society. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. The applicant is 4 ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions as may be imposed by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application and submits that the applicant induced the prosecutrix on the false promise of marriage and established physical relations with her. It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant refused to marry her and also extended threats, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it appears that the prosecutrix and the applicant were acquainted with each other for a considerable period and were in a relationship for about two and a half years. It is not in dispute that both parties are major. The allegations indicate that the relationship continued for a long duration and the physical relations were established during this period. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is to be examined whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The material on record prima facie reflects that the dispute has arisen out of a failed relationship between two consenting adults. Whether the promise of marriage was false from inception or the relationship subsequently turned sour is a matter of trial and requires appreciation of evidence. 5 7. Considering the nature of allegations, the period of relationship, and the fact that both parties are adults, coupled with the absence of any material indicating that the applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear necessary at this stage without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Rishabh Yadav, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) The applicant shall 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) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured 6 postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Madhurima