DINOJ BADA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010337322026 2026:CGHC:38832
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8108 of 2026
Dinoj Bada S/o Shri Sanwari, Bada, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Parsodi, Khud, Uraonpara, P. S. Darima, District Sarguja, C G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
Station Vishrampur District Surajpur C. G.
AKHILESH
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02/09/2026
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for
grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 0106/2026 registered at Police Station
Vishrampur District Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable

2
under Sections 64(m), 332(b) and 69 of BNS.
Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.04.2026, the
2.
complainant lodged a written report at Police Station Vishrampur,
District Surajpur, alleging that the present applicant established
physical relations with the victim during the period from
27.12.2024 to 04.02.2026 on the pretext of marriage and
subsequently refused to marry her. On the basis of the said
report, Crime No. 0106/2026 was registered against the applicant
for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023.
After completion of investigation, the prosecution filed the final
report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, for
offences punishable under Sections 69, 332(b) and 64(m) of the
BNS, 2023. Hence, the bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in
offence in question. He further submits that the material available
on record does not prima facie establish the commission of
offences under Sections 69, 332(b) and 64(m) of the BNS, 2023
against the present applicant, the parties were in a consensual
relationship/love affair, the victim is a major and was a consenting
party, and the medical report does not support the prosecution
case. He also submits that the alleged incidents are stated to
have occurred during the period from 27.12.2024 to 04.02.2026,
whereas the FIR was lodged on 24.04.2026, and no plausible

3
explanation has been offered by the prosecution for the delay in
lodging the report. The applicant is in jail since 13.06.2026, the
applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion.
Therefore, he prays for grant of 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. She further submits that the victim in her
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS stated that she is
th
a homemaker and has studied up to Class 10 . She stated that in
the year 2020, she became acquainted with the applicant, Danoj
Bada, resident of Village Parsodi, who used to visit her shop and
had earlier resided with his family at Village Karampur. Thereafter,
the applicant expressed his love for her and she came under his
influence. She further stated that on 27.12.2024 at about 10:00
p.m., when no one was present at her house, the applicant came
there and, assuring her that he would marry her, took her to the
room where she used to sleep and, despite her refusal, had
sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, whenever he got an
opportunity, he allegedly subjected her to forcible sexual
intercourse despite her refusal. She alleged that from 27.12.2024
to 04.02.2026, the applicant continuously subjected her to sexual
intercourse on the promise of marriage. She further stated that on
06.09.2025, the applicant took her to Ambikapur, where he kept
her in a rented room till January 2026 and continued to have

4
forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she asked him to marry
her, he refused and told her that he would not marry her and that
she could do whatever she wanted. She alleged that the applicant
had ruined her life.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the case diary.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
6.
nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant
since 13.06.2026, the fact that though the allegation against the
applicant is that he established physical relations with the victim
on the pretext of marriage during the period from 27.12.2024 to
04.02.2026 and subsequently refused to marry her and the said
fact is also corroborated from the statement of victim recorded
under Section 183 of BNSS, but considering the fact that the
victim is a major lady and was acquainted with the applicant since
2024, and both were in a consensual relationship, during which
they established physical relations with each other on multiple
occasion, wherein victim was the consenting party and when their
relationship could not materialized, victim lodged the present FIR
against the applicant, also considering the fact that the applicant
has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed, this
Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail in this case.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
7.

5
Let the Applicant- Dinoj Bada, involved in Crime No. 0106/2026
8.
registered at Police Station Vishrampur District Surajpur (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 64(m), 332(b) and 69 of
BNS, 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

6
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.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
9.
Court for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Akhil