1 CGHC010321982026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7810 of 2026 Vishal Verma S/o Om Prakash Lodhi Aged About 27 Years R/o Behind Masjid Police Station And Tehsil Sakti, Revenue District- Sakti Civil District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sakti District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Vipin Punjabi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. For the Objector : Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey and Shri Abhipreet Bajpai, Advocates. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 0319/2026 registered at Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS against the present applicant. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by the victim, aged about 28 years to the effect that she met the Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.30 10:39:32 +0530 2 present applicant through social media in the year 2020-2021. On 12th November, 2021, she met the present applicant and they stayed in a lodge where she was sexually exploited on the pretext of marriage and subsequently some objectionable video clips were also taken by the applicant and thereafter applicant repeated the offence many times between 12.11.2024 to 21.12.2024. Report was lodged on 12.07.2026. On such report/complaint, the Police registered the offences, as stated above, against the applicant. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would argue that in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed; the applicant is in jail since 28.07.2026 and marriage between them was solemnized in Arya Samaj Sanskar Kendra on 12.04.2025. He would submit that the police failed to investigate the matter properly. He would contend that the victim concealed the correct facts before the investigating agency, and therefore, he would pray that the application may be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/victim would oppose the bail application. He would submit that no marriage has been solemnized between the victim and the applicant. It is also argued that the present applicant on pretext of marriage sexually assaulted her on many times. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and argue that there are serious allegations of sexual assault made against the present applicant and there is criminal antecedent of similar nature, registered at police station Murtijapur, District Akola (Maharashtra). She would submit that the present 3 application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the fact that the victim has made serious allegations of sexual assault on pretext of marriage against the present applicant; there is a criminal antecedent of similar nature and the complainant has denied the factum of marriage between the applicant and the victim, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani