Chattisgarh High Court
Mehul Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11941
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1145 of 2026
Mehul Kashyap S/o Pandruram Kashyap, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village
Besolithana and Tahsil Bhanpuri, District- Bastar (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. City Kotwali Jagdalpur District- Bastar
(C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gangwani, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI KUMARI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
KUMARI Date:
2026.03.13
12:42:12
+0530
Order on Board
12.03.2026
1.The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 15/2026, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim appeared before Police Station City Kotwali on 07.01.2026 and filed a complaint against the applicant. It has been alleged that she had met Mehul Kashyap (the present applicant) about a year earlier at a temple in Dantewada. They 2 exchanged mobile numbers and started chatting with each other. Thereafter, she moved to Jagdalpur to pursue her college education. In June 2025, she was searching for a house on rent. The applicant informed her that he had a house in Chandrashekhar Ward, Jagdalpur, where she could stay. She went to see the house and liked it. From June 2025, she shifted her belongings and started residing at the applicant's house situated at Chandrashekhar Ward Housing Board, Jagdalpur. The applicant used to visit the house while going to and returning from college, and they would eat and spend time together. Gradually, they developed a love affair, and the applicant expressed his love for her and told her that he intended to marry her. When she stated that they should get married first, the applicant insisted on having a physical relationship with her, assuring her that he would marry her. On 01.07.2025, he established physical relations with her. Whenever she asked about marriage, the applicant assured her that it was his house and that he would continue to live there with her. The applicant allegedly maintained physical relations with her until 15.10.2025, after which he refused to marry her. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR No. 15/2026 was registered against the applicant/accused under Section 69 of the B.N.S.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim is a major woman aged about 26 years and that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the victim was having a love affair with the applicant and did not raise any objection to the commission of the alleged act during the course of the incident. However, when the relationship could not be materialized, she lodged the FIR against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that the 3 charge-sheet has already been filed in the case. The applicant has been in custody since 07.01.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage, but later refused to marry her. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation made against the applicant and period of detention in jail, and from the perusal of the statement, it transpires that the victim is a major woman aged about 26 years and that she was in a consensual relationship with the applicant, however, when the relationship could not be materialized, she lodged the FIR against the applicant, further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the case and the applicant has been in custody since 07.01.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant -
Mehul Kashyap involved in Crime No. 15/2026, registered at Police Station - City Kotwali Jagdalpur District- Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 69 of Bharartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 4 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 sufficient 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 sufficient 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. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti