1 2026:CGHC:714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9532 of 2025 Sonu Yadav S/o Jugdhar Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Madappa Camp, Ward No. 06, Kirandul, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Nagarnar District- Bastar (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulabani, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This is the First bail application 昀椀led 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. 196/2025 registered at Police Station : Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, the victim lodged an FIR against the present applicant alleging that the applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her from 12.01.2025 to 02.08.2025 on the false pretext of marriage, as a result of which she became pregnant. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the FIR against the present ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.01.08 11:03:42 +0530 2 applicant, commenced the investigation, and meanwhile arrested the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the victim is a major and a consenting party and was fully aware of all the consequences, hence, the alleged o昀昀ences are not made out against the applicant. He further submits that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time to conclude, and the applicant is presently in jail along with hardened criminals. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay without assigning any su昀케cient reasons. He also submits that both the parties were in a love relationship, and the present applicant never stated that he would not marry the victim. On the contrary, he was always ready and willing to perform marriage with her. However, due to the complexion of the applicant, the family members of the victim were not willing to give their consent for the marriage. Therefore, under pressure from her family members, the victim has lodged this false report. The present applicant is still ready and willing to marry the victim. He submits that the medical report does not support the prosecution case, and no credible medical evidence or injury report has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse. He submits that the victim and her family are misusing the legal process to harass the applicant after their relationship turned sour. He further submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 04.09.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet 3 has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim from 12.01.2025 to 02.08.2025 on the false pretext of marriage, as a result of which she became pregnant, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of regular bail. 5. Learned State Counsel further submits that, vide order dated 24.11.2025, this Court directed the production of the DNA report, however, as the victim has recently delivered a child, the DNA report could not be made available. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further that, vide order dated 24.11.2025, this Court directed the production of the DNA report, which could not be made available as the victim has recently delivered a child and so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the applicant and the victim were in a consensual love relationship, and the present applicant never stated that he would not marry the victim. On the contrary, he was always ready and willing to solemnize the marriage with her. Further considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court, that the present applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.09.2025, and that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case. 8. Let applicant, Sonu Yadav, involved in Crime No. 196/2025 registered at Police Station : Nagarnar, District Bastar (C.G.) for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 4 in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall 昀椀le an undertaking to the e昀昀ect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 昀椀xed 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 昀椀xed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without su昀케cient 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 昀椀xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in 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 昀椀xed 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 su昀케cient 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. 5 9. O昀케ce is directed to send a certi昀椀ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek