2026:CGHC:2484 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 83 of 2026 Mo. Muslim Khan S/o Mo. Shaukat Khan Aged About 27 Years R/o H.No. 86, Kota Road Lormi, Ward No. 15,ramhepur Lormi, District Mungeli C.G.

... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent VAIBHAV SINGH DbSyI i N g Vi G tAa HIlByH sAigVned D12a:t0e5: :21092 +6.00513.106 For Applicant : Ms. Rabiya Khan, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

15.01.2026

1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.388/2025 registered at Police Station – Tarbahar District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 69 of the BNS 2023.

2. The prosecution's story is that victim/complainant lodged a written complaint on 15.12.2025 against applicant stating that she was preparing for examination of NEET and residing at a rental house in Bilaspur, where in came in contact with the present applicant in the month of September, 2024 and intimation developed with both. After sometime, applicant made physical relations continuously with victim on pretext of marriage from October, 2024 to 11.09.2025. From which, victim conceived and at present carrying pregnancy. Upon asking marry with her, ultimately applicant denied the same, therefore, concerned police station registered FIR under aforementioned section. Charge-sheet has not been filed and the matter is being investigated by the police of Police Station Tarbahar, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further as no offence under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 is made out against him since the relationship between the parties was consensual and both are adults. A bare perusal of the FIR itself shows that the relationship developed at the residence of the prosecutrix, which clearly indicates consent. The applicant is a qualified MBBS doctor preparing for postgraduate studies, whereas the prosecutrix, despite repeated attempts, could not clear the NEET examination and, with the intention of marrying the applicant, voluntarily entered into the relationship. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had been threatening the applicant with false implication and was making unlawful demands, and upon his refusal, the present FIR came to be lodged. The applicant also submits that the prosecutrix used to emotionally pressurize him, and the material placed on record, including electronic communications, shows that she was persistently forcing him to marry her and threatening him in case of refusal. The prosecutrix is a major, aged about 23 years, fully aware of the consequences of her actions, and despite this, a highly delayed FIR was lodged on 15.12.2025 after she had already gone to her parental home on 12.09.2025. The applicant is a reputed doctor of the locality, has no criminal antecedents, and his arrest would irreparably damage his career and reputation. He undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation, not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and is ready to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the victim, aged about 23 years, and the present applicant were in a consensual relationship and had established physical relations, as a result of which the victim became pregnant. Subsequently, their relationship cou