PANKAJ KUMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010402882026 2026:CGHC:46908
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9807 of 2026
1 - Pankaj Kumar S/o Rajesh Ram Aged About 39 Years R/o Village
Bhadgawa, Police Station Chainpur District Palamum (Jharkhand)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Bataouli, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Jigyasa Singh, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
05.11.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 115/2026, registered at Police
Station Bataouli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh for the offence
punishable under Sections 69 of BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.11.05
15:19:18
+0530
lodged by the prosecutrix, aged about 28 years, against the present
applicant on 07.09.2026, alleging therein that the present applicant

2
sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage during the period from
29.07.2026 to 06.09.2026. It is further alleged that they were in a
relationship and had been living together as husband and wife, during
which the applicant established physical relations with her on several
occasions. Subsequently, she came to know that the applicant was
already married. Pursuant to the complaint, an FIR was registered
against the applicant for the offences mentioned above.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
prosecutrix was aged about 28 years at the time of the incident. The
applicant and the prosecutrix are related to each other and were in a
consensual relationship for a considerable period and had been living
together as husband and wife. He further submits that the prosecutrix
was aware of the fact that the applicant was already married and that
there was no concealment in this regard. The charge-sheet has already
been filed, and the applicant is in jail since 08.09.2026. He, therefore,
prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the applicant sexually exploited the prosecutrix over a
considerable period on the pretext of marriage by concealing the fact of
his existing marriage. He further submits that the prosecutrix has made
serious allegations against the present applicant. Therefore, the bail
application deserves to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
5.
diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,

3
particularly the fact that the prosecutrix was a mature woman aged
about 28 years at the time of the incident; the applicant and the
prosecutrix were allegedly in a relationship for a considerable period;
the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the charge-sheet has
already been filed; the applicant is in custody since 08.09.2026; and
the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the
present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
7. Let applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with one surety 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.

4
(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.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge

Jyoti