[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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.
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
