2026:CGHC:6770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1334 of 2026 Purshottam Vatti S/o Farsu Ram Vatti Aged About 25 Years R/o Khutpadar, P.S. Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-

Vishrampuri District- Kondagaon (C.G.)

... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

06.02.2026

1. This is the First bail application filed 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. 75/2025 registered at Police Station : Vishrampuri District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 89 and 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.09.2025 the victim lodged a report alleging that in January 2024 (exact date not known) the present applicant, Purushottam Vatti, obtained her RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN mobile number and started calling her; initially she did not respond, but upon repeated calls they began to converse and the caller disclosed his name as Purushottam Vatti. It is alleged that for about one month they remained in regular telephonic contact, and thereafter, upon learning her residential address, the applicant started visiting her house, where he expressed his desire to marry her and repeatedly persuaded her to establish physical relations. The victim allegedly refused and stated that any such relationship would be only after marriage; however, from February 2024 onwards, for about 16 months, the applicant is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with her several times at her house on the false promise of marriage. It is further alleged that when she later asked him to solemnize the marriage, he avoided the issue, stopped communicating with her, refused to marry her, and also got her pregnancy terminated. On the basis of the said report, the offence was registered and the applicant was arrested; hence, the present first bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the victim, being a major aged about 24 years, was in a consensual relationship with the applicant and was never subjected to any forceful act, and the present case has been given a criminal colour only to pressurize the applicant for illegal demands. It is further submitted that the victim herself decided to terminate her pregnancy of her own free will, as reflected from her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the exhumation proceedings showing recovery of the fetus from her own house, and therefore the allegations under Sections 89 and 91 of the BNS have been falsely invoked only to harass the applicant. It is also submitted that the FIR does not contain any allegation regarding forceful termination of pregnancy and the same has been introduced later as an afterthought, and even during medical examination no external injuries or signs of forceful intercourse were found, while the victim herself stated that she had consensual physical relations with the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is aged about 25 years, has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 11.09.2025, and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. She further submits that the present applicant has committed a serious offence by repeatedly establishing physical relations with the victim for a prolonged period of about 16 months on the false promise of marriage and thereafter refusing