[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Pavindra Kumar Diwakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18144
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 585 of 2026
Pavindra Kumar Diwakar S/o Shatruhan Diwakar Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village- Udka, P.S.- Fasterpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ...Applicant
versus
VAIBHAV State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Fasterpur District-
SINGH
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV SINGH
Date: 2026.04.22
Mungeli (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
10:59:54 +0530
For Applicant : Mr. Ayush LALL, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
21.04.2026
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. 30/2026
registered at Police Station - Fasterpur District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 64(2) (m) & 69 of the BNS.
2. The prosecution case in brief is thaton 18/03/2026, prosecutrix has
lodged a report at police Station Fasterpur against the applicant with
the allegation that, on 10/03/2022, at around 9:00 pm, the applicant
came to her home and forcefully established physical relation with her
on the false pretext of marriage. The applicant continued this
relationship through the year 2024 and as recently as on 06/01/2026
the applicant took her to the Raja Hotel at Old Bus Stand Bilaspur and
continued to have physical relation with her on the false pretext of
marriage. When the prosecutrix asked the applicant for marriage, he
then kept on making excuses and eventually fled away and switched
off his phone on 09/02/2026, to avoid his promise of marriage. On the
said report of the prosecutrix offence under sections 64 (2) (m) & 69 of
the BNS was registered against the applicant.
3. The applicant submits that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant
has not committed any offence as alleged. The relationship between
the applicant and the prosecutrix was admittedly a long-term one,
spanning over four years, which clearly indicates that it was a
voluntary relationship between consenting adults and not one based
on deceit from the inception. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix
herself appeared before the Court and filed a sworn affidavit stating
that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, which
reflects that the FIR appears to be the result of a temporary emotional
outburst or misunderstanding, and continued incarceration of the
applicant would serve no useful purpose. The case of the applicant is
also covered by the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in
Khamendra Sahu Vs. State of C.G., MCRCA No. 1371 of 2024 ,
wherein anticipatory bail was granted in similar circumstances
involving a consensual relationship between adults. The allegation of
the applicant being absconding is misconceived, as he is a poor
agricultural labourer who had gone outside the State for livelihood
and, during that period, lost his mobile phone, resulting in a
communication gap, which was not a deliberate attempt to evade the
process of law. It is further submitted that the action initiated against
the applicant is mala fide and the dispute has been unnecessarily
given a criminal colour, and there is no cogent evidence against him.
The offences are triable by the Court of learned JMFC, and the
allegations in the FIR do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences. The applicant is a reputed person in his locality, and
his arrest in such a false case would cause irreparable loss to his
reputation. He undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions as may
be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and is ready to furnish adequate
surety; hence, it is prayed that the applicant be granted anticipatory
bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel appearing for the non-
applicant/State, and submits that the applicant, on the pretext of
marriage, had 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 and circumstances of the case and the nature of
the allegations levelled against the applicant, it appears that the
victim, being a major, and the present applicant were known to each
other and were in a consensual relationship, during which a physical
relationship was established. Thereafter, when the relationship could
not culminate in marriage, the present FIR came to be lodged by the
victim on the allegation that the applicant refused to marry her.
Therefore, without making any further comments on the merits of the
case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present
applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in
the event of arrest of the applicant - Pavindra Kumar Diwakar, on
executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the
following conditions:-
(a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the
Court.
(b) he shall not act in any manner which will be
prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
(c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date given to him by the said Court till
disposal of the trial.
(d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his
adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo
having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be
verified by the trial Court.
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of
similar nature in future.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
vaibhav
