1 2026:CGHC:20231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 635 of 2026 Ilesh Kumar Manjhi S/o Fagunu Majhi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Khariyar Road Police Station - Nuapada District- Nuapada , Orissa ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Office - In Charge Police Station City Kotwali- Dhamtari District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 30.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 88/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali- Dhamtari District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2023, however, the victim lodged a RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 written complaint against the present applicant on 02.04.2026, alleging that the applicant had established a relationship with her on the false promise of marriage, which, according to her, was false from the very inception. On the basis of the said complaint, the police authorities of Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 88/2026 for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present applicant. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, prima facie, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 64(2)(M) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out, inasmuch as the victim was a consenting party and was in a relationship with the applicant out of her own volition. Learned counsel submits that the victim is a major woman aged about 40 years and is a married lady, fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions, and therefore, the allegation of false promise of marriage is not sustainable. It is further submitted that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident pertains to the year 2023 whereas the complaint has been filed on 02.04.2026, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. It is also argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to personal reasons, as the second real sister of the victim was proposed to be married to 3 the applicant, and on account of such circumstances, the present FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant belongs to a poor family and is a respectable person, and no incriminating document or material has been seized from his possession. It is contended that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and his further detention would serve no useful purpose, particularly when the substantial part of the investigation is already complete and there is no likelihood of the applicant influencing the prosecution case. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, clearly disclosing a case of sexual exploitation under the garb of false promise of marriage. It is submitted that the applicant, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the victim, has taken undue advantage of her vulnerable position, as her husband, who is the real brother of the applicant, had deserted her for several years. She further submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the applicant had established physical relations with her on multiple occasions on the pretext of marriage, despite knowing fully well that such promise could not be fulfilled, thereby vitiating her consent. It is contended that the conduct of the applicant reflects a clear intention to exploit the victim, and the delay in lodging the FIR is sufficiently explained considering the social stigma and familial pressure involved in such matters. She further 4 submits that the relationship between the parties and the position of trust held by the applicant aggravate the offence, making it a serious case of abuse of confidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 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 and gravity of allegations, and the material available on record, the fact that the victim, a married woman, has specifically alleged that the present applicant, who happens to be her brother-in-law, has established physical relations with her on several occasions on the pretext of marriage, despite being fully aware of the subsisting marital status of the victim, thereby prima facie indicating a clear case of sexual exploitation by the applicant under the garb of false promise of marriage. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS lends support to the prosecution version, and at this stage, the defence raised by the applicant regarding consent, delay in lodging FIR, and alleged false implication are matters to be examined during trial. The relationship between the parties and the fact that the husband of the victim had deserted her, coupled with the allegation that the applicant took undue advantage of such vulnerable position, further aggravates the seriousness of the offence. This Court is also of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant appears necessary for proper investigation. In such circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of 5 the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Ilesh Kumar Manjhi, involved in Crime No. 88/2026, registered at Police Station City Kotwali- Dhamtari District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan