Suraj Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Das Manikpuri S/o Santosh Das Manikpuri Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Paraghat, Jairamnagar, Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicant	: ^{Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate.}
For Non-Applicant/State	: Mr. Sangarsh Pandey , Govt. Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17.07.2026

¶16

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. 0542/2026 registered at Police Station – Sakri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 351(3) of the BNS.

¶17

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant became acquainted with the applicant in the year 2010 and remained in

¶18

2

¶19

contact with him. It is alleged that the applicant represented that he had influence and assured the complainant that he would arrange employment for her. The complainant allegedly handed over Rs.2,00,000/- in cash along with certain gold and silver ornaments to the applicant. She further alleged that on 03.02.2026, the applicant came to the house of the complainant when she was alone and established physical relations with her against her will. It is further alleged that thereafter the applicant took the complainant to H.K. Hotel, Koni, where he repeatedly established physical relations with her. Based on the said allegations, Crime No.0542/2026 was registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a monetary dispute and personal differences between the parties. It is contended that the contemporaneous documentary evidence, including WhatsApp conversations, online purchase records, financial transaction details, call records, and Bajaj Finance gold loan documents, prima facie demonstrates that the complainant and the applicant maintained cordial relations and remained in continuous contact even after the dates of the alleged incidents. It is further submitted that the complainant voluntarily accepted gifts purchased by the applicant, exchanged regular messages and calls with him, and there were reciprocal financial transactions between them, thereby rendering the prosecution story inherently improbable. Learned counsel further submits that the Non-Cognizable Report lodged by the complainant on 19.05.2026, concerning disputes over money and gold

¶21

3

¶22

ornaments, did not contain any allegation of rape or sexual assault, and such allegations were introduced for the first time in the FIR dated 08.06.2026 after considerable and unexplained delay, creating serious contradictions in the prosecution case. It is also argued that the chronology of events, including the pledge and subsequent release of the complainant's gold ornaments, the complaints made by the applicant's sister to the police authorities seeking a fair enquiry and regarding the return of the ornaments, and the CCTV footage of the police station, probabilise the defence version that the FIR is an outcome of personal vendetta and has been lodged to exert pressure upon the applicant. It is further contended that there is no material to substantiate the allegation that the applicant had induced the complainant on the false promise of employment. The applicant has cooperated with the investigation, has deep roots in society, is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence, and is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶23

4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel appearing for the nonapplicant/State, opposes the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submitted 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.

¶24

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the statement of the

¶26

4

¶27

victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, it appears that the victim, a 36-year-old married woman, and the present applicant were known to each other and were in a consensual relationship, during which they established physical relations. Thereafter, when the relationship could not culminate in marriage, the victim lodged the present FIR alleging that the applicant refused to marry her. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

¶28

7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Suraj Das Manikpuri , on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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

¶32

5

¶33

verified by the trial Court.

¶34

(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶37

Judge