1 2026:CGHC:16934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1488 of 2026 Yogesh Verma S/o Shri Manharam Lal Verma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Kot P.S. Kasdol, Distt- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kasdol, District- Balodazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 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. 26/2026 registered at Police Station : Kasdol, District- Balodazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim, aged about 22 years and a student of B.Sc. Final Year, lodged a written report on 18.01.2026 against the applicant stating that she RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 and the applicant are neighbours and have known each other for the last 3–4 years, and were on talking terms, during which the applicant had earlier proposed her for marriage, however, after some time they stopped talking, and in the year 2023, the applicant got married. It is further alleged that in the month of February, 2025, the applicant again proposed her for marriage and threatened that if she did not talk to him, he would end his life, due to which their relationship resumed, and on 31.12.2025, the applicant called her to a kitchen garden and thereafter took her to the garden of DAV School situated at village Chharchhed, where he established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage, and on the next morning refused to marry her and left the place, thereafter, the victim went to Raipur and started working at Nirogdham Hospital, and on 17.01.2026, her parents brought her back home, whereupon she narrated the entire incident to them and lodged the report on 18.01.2026, on the basis of which offence under Section 69 of the B.N.S. was registered, and the applicant was arrested on 19.01.2026. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further submits that as per the prosecution story, the alleged incident took place on 31.12.2025 whereas the report has been lodged on 18.01.2026 without any explanation for such delay. He also submits that the victim is a highly educated lady and was well aware that the applicant is a married person, despite which she developed physical relations 3 with him and did not raise any objection, which clearly shows that she was a consenting party, and that both the applicant and the victim are residents of the same village and were known to each other for the last 3–4 years. He further submits that on the date of the incident the victim herself went with the applicant to the place of occurrence and did not raise any alarm or inform her parents, and thereafter remained away from her house for about 17 days and resided at Raipur without informing anyone, and only after her parents brought her back, a false story has been developed to implicate the applicant. He also submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and statements are not supported by medical evidence, and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the report. He also submits that both the applicant and the victim had studied in the same school and were in contact for a long time, and when the family members of the victim came to know about the same, they developed suspicion and got the present case registered, and that it appears to be a case of extra-marital affair and when the applicant refused to marry, the present report has been lodged by making allegations of false promise of marriage. It is submitted that the wife of the applicant is in an advanced stage of pregnancy and his presence is necessary to provide moral support to her. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 19.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, and there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish his involvement in the offence. She further submits that the applicant has established physical relations with the victim on the pretext of marriage, and on the next morning refused to marry her and left the place and that the statements of the victim support the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the victim is a major and appears to be a consenting party, and there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered, and further that both the applicant and the victim were known to each other for a considerable period and were in a consensual relationship. Further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, he has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 19.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is 5 entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant, Yogesh Verma, involved in Crime No. 26/2026 registered at Police Station : Kasdol, District- Balodazar-Bhatapara, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 6 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. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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 Rahul Dewangan