##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:14485 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRCA No. 453 of 2026

Umesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Pisaud, P.S.- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant

VAIBHAV SINGH versus Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.03.28 15:59:04 +0530

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

27.03.2026

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.103/2026 registered at Police Station – Champa, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

for the offences punishable under Sections 69 of the BNS 2023.

2.

The prosecution's story is that he applicant is a resident of Champa and was known to the prosecutrix for approximately one and half year.

2

The prosecutrix is a major girl aged about 27 years, residing with her mother and working in the Reliance trends showroom at Champa. The applicant and the prosecutrix were in a voluntary and consensual acquaintance. The applicant used to visit the prosecutrix's house, and they communicated over the phone and in person on multiple occasions. The Prosecutrix has alleged that on 12.12.2024, and on subsequent occasions, the Applicant established a physical relationship with her at her residence under the false pretext of a promise to marry.It is also alleged that when the prosecutrix asked the applicant to formalize the marriage, he refused, then thereafter prosecutrix moved a complaint before the P.S. Champa and the P.S. Champa registered the F.I.R against the applicant in Crime No. 103/26

in offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further the alleged incident is stated to have taken place in December 2024 whereas the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution story; because the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was long- standing, voluntary, and consensual in nature, both parties being major, and a mere breach of promise to marry does not ipso facto constitute an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); because there is no credible or independent evidence to substantiate the allegation of sexual intercourse, especially when the incident is alleged to be about one and a half years old; and because no incriminating material has been seized or found against the present

3

applicant during the course of investigation, thus his implication is

baseless and unjustified.

4.

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

to the grant of anticipatory bail.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

6.

Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, it appears that the victim who is aged about 27 years and the present applicant were in a consensual relationship and they established sexual relationship, thereafter, their relationship could not be materialize, consequently, the present FIR has been lodged by the victim on the ground that the present applicant refused to marry her. Therefore, without further commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail

to the applicant.

7.

Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Umesh Kumar, on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction o