2026:CGHC:15112 KUNAL DEWANGAN NAFR Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 904 of 2026 Xyz Nill ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

2 - Amrit Tirkey S/o Uchit Tirkey Aged About 34 Years Caste- Oraon, Resident Of Village- Lchkela, Police Station- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

---- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra K. Saxena, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

01.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent/State.

2. The present petition is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No. 2 namely Amrit Tirkey, as he was enlarged on anticipatory bail by order dated 22.01.2026 in MCRCA No. 127 of

2026.

3. The respondent Nos. 2 had preferred anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No. 08/2026, registered at Police Station - Kunkuri, District – Jashpur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366, 420 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/victim respectfully submits that the applicant is an old and helpless widow lady, whose husband passed away in the year 2015 and since then she has been surviving in extremely difficult and pathetic financial circumstances. It is submitted that taking undue advantage of her vulnerable condition, the respondent No. 2 established contact with the applicant and repeatedly lured her with false promises of marriage. On 09.03.2021, the respondent No. 2 visited the residence of the applicant and on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and thereafter continued to exploit her on multiple occasions on the same false assurance. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 deceitfully obtained a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the applicant and also induced her to transfer her land in his favour. Despite repeated requests made by the applicant for solemnization of marriage, the respondent No. 2 deliberately avoided the same and continued to mislead her with empty assurances, with an intention to keep her as a concubine.

5. It is further submitted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim/applicant, offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 366 and 420 of the IPC have been registered against the respondent No. 2. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 initially sought relief under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. before the trial Court, which came to be rejected and thereafter he preferred an application for anticipatory bail before this Court, which was allowed on 22.01.2026. However, it is most respectfully submitted that after being enlarged on bail, the respondent No. 2 has grossly misused the liberty granted to him and has been continuously threatening and intimidating the applicant through mobile calls, pressurizing her to withdraw the case and enter into a compromise, failing which she has been threatened with dire consequences. It is further submitted that such conduct of the respondent No. 2 is in clear and flagrant violation of the conditions imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail, particularly the condition restraining him from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and from acting in any manner prejudicial to a fair trial. The repeated acts of intimidation and coercion not only undermine the administration of justice but also create a grave apprehension in the mind of the applicant regarding her safety and security. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2, being a Constable in the Home (Police) Department, is in a position of authority and influence and there exists