Vijay Yadav S/o Arun Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lau Police Station v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4897 of 2025 Vijay Yadav S/o Arun Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Lau Police Station Rajpur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 96/2025 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/victim 2 lodged a report at Rajpur Police Station alleging that she met the accused in 2018 and they would talk on mobile phones. The accused promised to marry her and make her his wife. In February 2023, he established an illicit relationship with her in Haritima forest and committed the same multiple times. When she asked him to marry her, he took her to Ambikapur and abandoned her there, refusing to marry her. The accused had already fixed his marriage elsewhere and had even got her aborted. On 24.12.2025, he last established an illicit relationship with her and again refused to marry her. Based on the complainant/victim's report, Crime No. 96/2025 was registered at Rajpur police station under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the investigation, statements of the victim and other witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that the victim is major lady and she was in love with the applicant, when she came to know about the fact that applicant marriage was fixed with someone else, she lodged the present FIR to harass the applicant. He also submits that the incident pertains to the year 2018, and if any such wrong act was committed by the applicant, she ought to have raised an alarm at that time, however, she lodged the FIR in 2023 without providing any explanation for the delay. The applicant is in jail since 02.05.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet 3 has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case. He further submits that though the applicant has no criminal antecedent, but he had established physical relationship with the victim on multiple occasions on the pretext of marriage, and later on refused to marry her, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 02.05.2025, the fact that though the applicant had established physical relationship with the victim on multiple occasions on the pretext of marriage, and later on refused to marry her, but the incident pertains to the year 2018, and if any such wrong act was committed by the applicant, she ought to have raised an alarm at that time, so far as criminal antecedent of the applicant is concerned, applicant has no criminal antecedents and learned counsel for the applicant has stated at bar that charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and he has the copy of the same, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant-Vijay Yadav, involved in Crime No. 96/2025 4 registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2) (m) of BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 5 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil