2026:CGHC:7664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 221 of 2026 Matiram Suman S/o Surti Ram Suman, Aged About 32 Years R/o House No. 46, Satnami Para, Bhanthagaon , Tahsil - Kosir, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.)

...Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, PL.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

11.02.2026

1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection Digitally with Crime No.442/2025 registered at Police Station –

signed by SISTLA SISTLA NEELIMA NEELIMA VISHNU Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the VISHNU PRIYA PRIYA Date:

2026.02.13 offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS, 2023.

+0530

2. According to the prosecution’s case, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Sarangarh alleging that the Applicant kept her in a rented house and established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, the prosecutrix came to know that the applicant was already married and had three children, and that the physical relationship had been established on the basis of a misconception of fact regarding marriage. On the basis of the said report, an offence under Section 69 of the BNS has been registered against the Applicant. Hence, this application.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a major woman and from her conduct and the material collected during investigation, it is evident that she was a willing and consenting party; therefore, the offence under Section 69 of the BNS is not made out against the Applicant. It is further contended that the prosecutrix herself is a married lady and there has been no dissolution of her marriage with her husband and thus the allegation that the Applicant extended a false promise of marriage is inherently improbable. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecutrix has lodged a false report with an ulterior motive of extracting money from the Applicant and upon non-fulfilment of such demand, she initiated the present criminal proceedings. It is further submitted that both the parties had been in contact since the year 2022 and had established physical relations, during which the prosecutrix allegedly conceived and thereafter she lodged the present FIR. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has not absconded and has been continuously residing at his residence and therefore, there is no likelihood of his fleeing from justice and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are not attracted in the present case, therefore, he deserves to be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

4. Contrastingly, learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the allegations against the Applicant are serious in nature, involving establishment of physical relations with the prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage, which prima facie attracts the offence under Section 69 of the BNS. It is contended that the statements of the prosecutrix and other material collected during investigation disclose that the consent of the prosecutrix was obtained on the basis of deception and misconception of fact and therefore, the plea of consensual relationship raised by the Applicant is a matter to be examined during trial. Learned Counsel further submits that the fact that the prosecutrix allegedly conceived during the relationship does not dilute the gravity of the allegations and the defence sought to be raised by the Applicant cannot be considered at this stage. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the Applicant may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation and there exists a likelihood of the Applicant influenci