Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7742 (CHH)

DILIP KUMAR PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3682/2026 · 2026-04-22

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:18682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3682 of 2026 Dilip Kumar Prajapati S/o- Nanhelal Prajapati Aged About 26 Years Caste-Kumhar, R/o- Village Saidpur Khajuriya, P.S. P.A.C Cantt. District-Bareli (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23/04/2026 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. 252/2025 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) for the offences punishable AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Sections 69, 296, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 67 and 67(a) of IT Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written report stating that in the year 2024 she came into contact with the applicant through the Instagram, whereafter they developed a love relationship. It is alleged that on 23.03.2025, while the victim was residing in a rented room, the applicant visited her and, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her. It is further alleged that subsequently the applicant refused to marry her. The prosecution also alleges that the applicant recorded her private video during a video call, and thereafter, by using her account credentials, uploaded the said video on her Instagram status and also shared the same with her brother, thereby committing the alleged offence. 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 victim is a major and came into contact with the applicant through Instagram, they have been acquainted with each other since the year 2023 and were in a consensual relationship, pursuant to which they established physical relations, wherein the victim was a consenting party. The applicant is in jail since 29.11.2025, 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 3 bail to the 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. She further submits that the applicant allegedly developed a relationship with the victim through Instagram and, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with he and later on refused to marry her, the applicant had recorded her private video during a video call, which he subsequently uploaded on her Instagram account and shared with her brother, 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 29.11.2025, the fact that though the applicant allegedly developed a relationship with the victim through Instagram and, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with he and later on refused to marry her, but considering the fact that victim is a major and came into contact with the applicant through Instagram, they have been acquainted with each other since the year 2023 and were in a consensual relationship, pursuant to which they established physical relations, wherein the victim was a consenting party and when their relationship could not be materialized, victim lodged an FIR against the applicant to 4 harass him, 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. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant-Dilip Kumar Prajapati, involved in Crime No. 252/2025 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 296, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 67 and 67(a) of IT Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 5 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. 9. 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