[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramvishal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14416
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2828 of 2026
Ramvishal Sahu S/o Sukhnath Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village
Govindpur, Police Station And District- Surajpur (C.G.) ...Applicant
versus
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police
Date: 2026.03.27
Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Non-applicant
11:54:59 +0530
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25.03.2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
26/2026, registered at Police Station : Baikunthpur, District- Koriya
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(F)(M) of BNS.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on the basis of written report
lodged by victim to the Police ofPolice Station Baikunthpur, District
Koriya (C.G.), the police registered the alleged offences against the
applicant and it is alleged in the written complaint that the present
applicant who is the brother-in-law of the victim took the victim to the
Hotel and the present applicant booked the Room No.105 of the
Hotel. It is alleged that when the victim went to washroom, the door
was knocked by the applicant and when the door was opened by the
victim, the applicant gagged the mouth of victim and established
physical relationship with the victim and thereafter from 25-05-2019 to
04-10-2025, the applicant continuously established physical
relationship with the victim at number of occasion.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant
has been falsely implicated in the case. It is pertinent to submit that,
even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, the
conduct of the victim clearly indicates that she was a consenting party,
being a major and married woman aged about 33 years. As per her
own version, the alleged relationship commenced on 25.05.2019 and
continued till 04.10.2025, thereby showing that the applicant and the
victim remained in a relationship for more than five and a half years. It
is further submitted that the FIR was lodged only after the victim's
family members became aware of the said relationship. Moreover, the
medical examination (MLC) of the victim does not support the
prosecution case, as no injuries were found. The applicant, aged
about 42 years, has been in judicial custody since 23.01.2026, and
the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore,
considering the period of detention and the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Hon'ble Court may kindly consider granting regular bail
to the applicant. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial
and further craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise additional
grounds at the time of hearing. It is also submitted that the applicant is
a permanent resident at the address mentioned in the cause title and
there is no likelihood of his absconding.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel State opposed the bail
application of the present applicant and submits that the present
applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship
with the victim, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular 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 for the last seven years and were in a consensual relationship,
during which a physical relationship was established. It further
appears that when a dispute arose between them, the present FIR
came to be lodged by the victim. Further, taking into account that the
applicant has been in custody since 23.01.2026 and that the trial is
likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail
in the present case.
7. Let applicant, Ramvishal Sahu, involved in Crime No. 26/2026,
registered at Police Station : Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(F)(M) of BNS, be
released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local 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 his 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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Vaibhav
