##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:15079 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRCA No. 472 of 2026

Sunil Kumar Dhiwar S/o Teras Ram Dhiwar Aged About 37 Years R/o Dadarkhurd Korba, Tehsil- Korba Dist- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Thana Civil Line Rampur, Korba District- Korba (C.G.)

... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Megha Mishra, Advocate.

For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

VAIBHAV SINGH

01.04.2026 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.02

11:04:56 +0530 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.150/2026 registered at Police Station – Thana Civil Line Rampur, Korba District- Korba (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 69 of the BNS.

2.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the prosecutrix and the applicant came into contact around eight months prior to the incident and gradually developed a close relationship with each other. It is alleged

2

that after exchanging mobile numbers, they started talking regularly over phone, meeting frequently at different places and developed physical relations. According to the prosecution, the applicant had established physical relations with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage. However, on 26.02.2026, the prosecutrix came to know through a marriage card that the applicant was going to marry another woman and had no intention to marry her. Feeling deceived, she approached the police authorities and lodged a report against the applicant alleging that he had sexually exploited her on the false pretext of marriage. On the basis of the said complaint, the police

registered an FIR against the applicant for the alleged offence.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to a personal dispute with the prosecutrix. It is submitted that the applicant is a poor farmer and labourer and was unable to fulfil the expectations of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that although the alleged incident is said to have commenced on 04.07.2025, the FIR came to be lodged only on 26.02.2026, which clearly indicates that the allegations are an afterthought. It is contended that the applicant and the prosecutrix had known each other for the last eight months, used to meet frequently, go out together and the prosecutrix had even invited the applicant to her house. It is further submitted that due to family opposition and caste differences, the applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix, whereafter she threatened to falsely implicate him in a criminal case. Learned counsel submits that the applicant never committed any sexual assault or established any physical relationship with the prosecutrix and that no incriminating article or evidence has

3

been recovered or seized from him. It is also submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, and he is ready and willing to abide by any

terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

4.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non- applicant/State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submits that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relations with the victim, therefore, he is not

entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

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 of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the material available on record, including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the B.N.S., it appears that the victim, being a major, was acquainted with the