1 2026:CGHC:8620 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 520 of 2026 1 - XYZ Nil ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The District Magistrate, South Bastar, Dist. - Bijapur (C.G.) 2 - Dhanendra Patel, Hudco Colony, Anwarabhata, Dantewada, Dist. - South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. N. Naha Roy, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 18 / 02 / 2026 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Charge of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada, District – Dantewada (C.G.) in bail application No. 8/2026 in connection with Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station – Nelsanar, District – Bijapur, under Sections 69 of BNS, whereby the application under Section 483 of BNSS of the HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.19 10:13:37 +0530 2 accused/respondent No. 2- Dhanendra Patel had been allowed and bail has been granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (victim) submits that on the complaint of the petitioner herein, the accused/respondent No. 2 has been arrested on 13.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 01/2026 registered at police station – Nelsanar, District – Bijapur for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023. After registration of FIR, hardly seven days had passed, and the investigation was pending substantially. However, ignoring this very aspect, the learned trial Court, while considering the regular bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under Section 483 of BNSS, referred to certain selected documents of Sessions Case No. 325/2016 presented by the respondent No. 2 allowed the bail application and the accused has been granted bail. He further submits that the learned trial Court, ignoring the fact that the entire investigation with respect to the present case had still been left to be done, allowed the bail application vide impugned order dated 20.01.2026. The learned trial Court did not even bother to confirm whether the statement under Section 183 of BNSS had been recorded or not, to give a fearless atmosphere to the victim to narrate the facts of the case. 3. He further submits that insofar the reference to the case of 2016 is concerned, it is submitted that on such occasion the petitioner was victimized by on Dharam Singh Manjhi under the pretext of marriage and by playing bluff with her prepared affidavits dated 04.02.2016 in his name and also in the name of the present petitioner, referring to which he even misstated before this Court of having entered into 3 marriage with the present petitioner and convinced this court for grant of anticipatory bail in MCRCA No. 779/2016 vide order dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-3). He also submits that the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the FIR had been lodged only seven days back and investigation had been still going on wherein even the statement of the present petitioner under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 was yet to be recorded and at this primitive stage while spending only seven days in judicial custody against extremely serious charges the accused had not made out any exceptional case for being enlarged on bail. As such, the petition may be allowed, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition and the impugned order. 6. On 20.01.2026, the learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, found that the petitioner/victim is a 33-year-old major lady, and she had also filed a report before this report against another accused on the same ground i.e. the crime on pretext of marriage, thus considering all these facts the trial Court allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS of the respondent No. 2 herein. 7. Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) is engrafted to allow the High Court to intervene in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where it is necessary to prevent injustice. It is not meant to manage 4 the trial process and specific timelines for disposal. As per the order sheet dated 20.01.2026, the matter has been heard on the bail application of the accused filed under Section 483 of BNSS, which got allowed by the trial Court. As such, I am not inclined to use inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS. 8. Accordingly, in view of the above, the petition is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu