1

2026:CGHC:20646-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 839 of 2025

Pankaj Sharma S/o Shri Ramraj Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o

Permanent Address House No. BD 25 Ward No. 4 South Jhagarkhad

Kalri New Ledri Badi Dafai District Koriya (C.G.) Present Address

Professor Colony Raipur Distt Raipur (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police

Station - Mahila Thana Raipur Distt Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent

For Appellant :Mr.Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent:Mr.Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate

General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

4/5/2026

1.Though this criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.

03/2026, which is an application for grant of temporary bail on the

ground that the appellant’s 8-year-old daughter, namely Sakshi

Sharma, is suffering from typhoid fever, severe anemia (+++), a fatty

2

liver, and symptoms such as fever and vomiting, this Court,

considering the fact that the appellant has been in jail since

08.04.2025 and also taking into account the medical grounds,

proceeds to hear the appeal finally.

2.The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge

under SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Criminal

Case No.08/2024, whereby the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced in the following manner :

Sl.

No.

Conviction Sentence

1.Under Section

376(2)(n) of the

Indian Panel

Code

RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in

default of payment of fine to further

undergo RI for 2 months.

2. Under Section

3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled

Castes and

Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of

Atrocities) Act,

1989

Imprisonment for life and fine of

Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to

further undergo RI for 2 months.

3.The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28

th

August, 2023, the victim

(PW-10) submitted a written complaint to the police station Azad

Chowk, Raipur, stating that she is a resident of Mandakala, Police

Station Hasaud, District Janjgir. In 2014, while on duty at the

3

hospital, Bilaspur, for her B.Sc. Nursing degree, she met the present

appellant, a resident of Raipur and studying engineering. A year after

her acquaintance with the accused / appellant, in 2015, the appellant

told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her and make her his

wife. The victim replied that she belonged to the Satnami caste, to

which the accused / appellant replied that it did not matter to him.

From then on, the victim and the accused continued to meet and visit

each other. For the first time, the accused / appellant took her to his

rented house in Brahmanpara, Raipur, and had sexual intercourse

with her, promising to marry her and keep her as his wife. After this,

the accused / appellant repeatedly visited the victim's residences,

took her to various hotels, and had physical relations with her and

physically exploited her. Whenever the victim spoke to the accused /

appellant about marriage, he would deceive her and promise to

marry her, thus convincing her.

4.The victim has also written in her written report that about 6 months

ago the accused / appellant had married another girl and on

complaining, he again told her that he should also marry her. He had

physical relations with the victim for the last time on 14.08.2023 by

coming to Jamuna-Jageshwar Hostel, near Chandu Kirana Store,

Lily Chowk Purani Basti Sampur and by taking the victim into

confidence that he would make her his wife, she was physically

exploited and now the accused / appellant is refusing to marry the

victim. The accused / appellant exploited the victim by establishing

physical relations with her by deceiving her into marriage. The above

4

written complaint of the victim was sent to Women Police Station

Raipur for appropriate action, on which Crime No. 103/2023 was

registered by Women Police Station Raipur and after completing the

investigation in the case, the charge sheet was presented before the

competent criminal Court.

5.The accused / appellant was charged under Section 376 (2) (n) of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as “IPC) and Section

3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as “Atrocities Act”), read

out to him and explained to him. He denied the commission of the

offence and when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, he pleaded not guilty.

6.In this case, the prosecution presented in support of its case

prosecution witnesses Ashish Sahu (PW-1), Hemant Fenkar (PW-2),

Durgesh Sahu (PW-3), Dr. Kiran Dhruv (PW-4), Dr. Anil Kumar

Baghel (PW-5), Phageshwari Kanwar (PW-6), Lata Aware (PW-7),

Sanjeev Nema (PW-8), Bebi Nanda (PW-9), victim (PW-10), Kiran

Kumhariya (PW-11), Barkha Sahu (PW-12), Vedwati Dariyo (PW-13),

witness Gautam (PW-14), Deputy Superintendent of Police Lata

Mehar (PW-15) and Durgesh Sahu (PW-16) have recorded their

statements in the Court, whereas the defence has not presented any

evidence in support of its side.

7. Learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence available on

record, vide its judgment dated 8.4.2025 convicted the appellant for

5

offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the

Atrocities Act and sentenced him as mentioned in para 2 of the said

judgment. Hence, this appeal.

8.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned

judgment dated 08.04.2025 is contrary to law, facts, and

circumstances of the case and is therefore liable to be set aside.

Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the alleged incident

occurred in the course of a voluntary and consensual relationship

between the parties, and the essential ingredients of the offence

under Section 375 of the IPC are not made out. The victim was in a

relationship with the appellant for a considerable period of about 8

years, and the FIR was lodged only after the appellant’s marriage,

with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. A perusal of the FIR

itself indicates a consensual relationship, as both parties were well

acquainted for several years, had exchanged mobile numbers, and

remained in continuous contact. The victim is an educated adult who

was fully aware of the nature and consequences of such a

relationship and entered into it voluntarily. He further submits that

learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the cross-examination

of the victim, wherein she admitted awareness that physical relations

without marriage are not socially acceptable. No complaint was ever

made by the victim during the subsistence of the relationship alleging

any forceful physical intercourse. There are material omissions and

contradictions in the statements of the victim under Sections 161

CrPC, 164 CrPC, and her deposition before the trial Court, which

6

have been overlooked by the trial Court. Even in her written

complaint, the victim did not allege any instance of forceful physical

relations. The victim herself stated that the appellant married another

woman due to family pressure, and therefore, there was no false

promise or deliberate misrepresentation on his part. Learned trial

Court failed to consider documentary evidence (Articles D-1 to D-4),

including photographs, which indicate a consensual relationship

between the parties. The entirety of the cross-examination reflects a

long-standing relationship of love and mutual affection. The victim

admitted that they were in regular contact over the phone and had

developed a romantic relationship, which negates the allegation of

inducement on a false promise of marriage. The victim also admitted

that she lived with the appellant for several years, which further

establishes the consensual nature of the relationship. In her

statement, the victim stated that she agreed to establish physical

relations but did not allege that the same was forceful. She further

admitted that her written complaint (Ex.P-2) contains no allegation of

force. The victim was aware of the appellant’s marriage and did not

raise any objection or lodge any complaint at that time.

9.Learned counsel also submits that the allegations under the relevant

provisions of the Atrocities Act are not made out in the absence of

specific averments attracting the said provisions. The mere fact that

the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community

does not, by itself, attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act,

particularly when the relationship was consensual and based on

7

mutual affection. Learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant

under Section 376(2)(n) IPC without the prosecution having proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to

establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the

conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. The learned trial

Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents on

record in their correct perspective. He contended that learned trial

Court failed to consider settled legal principles laid down in judicial

precedents, wherein it has been held that if a promise to marry was

not false at inception and was not made solely to induce consent, the

offence of rape is not made out. In the present case, the victim

consented to the relationship out of love and affection, and not solely

on account of any alleged misrepresentation by the appellant. It is

well settled that to establish an offence based on false promise of

marriage, it must be shown that the accused had no intention to

marry from the very beginning. A mere failure to fulfil a promise, due

to unforeseen or unavoidable circumstances, does not amount to a

misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC. In the present case, the

evidence does not establish any such initial fraudulent intent on the

part of the appellant. As such, criminal appeal deserves to be

allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

10.Learned State counsel submits that the victim has consistently and

credibly narrated the sequence of events, and her testimony is fully

supported by the surrounding circumstances. It is argued that the

appellant continuously exploited the victim’s trust by giving repeated

8

assurances of marriage and used this deception to establish physical

relations over a prolonged period, which clearly attracts the offence

alleged. The delay in lodging the FIR is satisfactorily explained, as

the victim acted only after learning of the appellant’s impending

marriage with another girl. The investigation is complete, the material

witnesses support the prosecution case, and no plausible defence

has been raised. Hence, the conviction is justified and deserves to

be upheld.

11.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went

through the records with utmost circumspection.

12.Since the victim was a major, the question that would arise for

consideration is whether the appellant forcibly committed sexual

intercourse with her or whether the acts were consensual in nature.

13.PW-4, Dr. Kiran Dhruv, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kalibadi,

Raipur, deposed that during the examination of the victim, she found

a black mole on her chin as an identifying mark. The victim stated

that she had her last menstrual period on 09.08.2023 and that she

had her first menstruation at the age of 14. The victim had developed

secondary sexual characteristics. Upon examining the victim's

genitals, she found that her hymen was torn. She prepared and

sealed two vaginal slides of the victim and handed them over to the

same female constable for chemical testing. She has stated in her

examination report that she cannot give a definitive opinion regarding

9

immediate sexual intercourse with the victim without chemical testing

of the vaginal slides.

14.The victim (PW-10) stated that about a year after she became

acquainted with the accused, the accused came to Bilaspur and said

that he love her and want to marry her and make her his wife. She

then told the accused that she belong to Satnami caste, to which the

accused replied that it does not matter to him what caste she belong

to. She began meeting with the accused regularly, and they also

began traveling together. In the year 2015, the accused took her for

the first time to his rented house in Brahman Para, Raipur, and told

her that he would marry her and forcibly had physical relations with

her. After this incident, wherever she lived, the accused took her to

different hotels and forcibly had physical relations with her and

exploited her physically. When she asked the accused to marry her,

he deceived her and promised to marry her. She fell for the

accused's false promises. In the month of August 2023, 06 months

before the incident was reported in the Women's Police Station,

Raipur, she came to know that the accused had married another girl.

When she objected, he told her that he would marry her too. The last

time he forcibly had sex with her was on 14

th

August, 2023, at

Jamuna Jageshwar Hostel, near Chandu Kirana Store, Lily Chowk,

Old Basti, Raipur, saying that he will make her his wife. He did not

marry her when she asked him to. After filing the report, she came to

know the name of the girl whom the accused had married. She is a

girl named Sakshi of the same caste as the accused and is a

10

resident of Shahdol. The accused, after giving her assurance of

marriage, forcibly had physical relations with her more than once and

the accused had physical relations with her knowing that she belong

to Satnami caste and a member of Scheduled Caste category.

15.In para 12 of her cross-examination, the victim admitted that she

started talking to the accused on the phone from the year 2014. The

witness voluntarily says that the accused used to call her. When the

witness was asked that after the conversation started, did she also

call him and talk? The witness said that they used to talk together.

She admitted that they kept talking on the phone continuously for a

year. In para 13 of her cross-examination, she stated that a love

affair between her and the accused began at the end of 2014. They

began meeting in 2015. When asked, "Whenever they two met, the

place was decided in advance," The victim said, "the accused himself

would tell her the place." The victim now says, "they only met once or

twice after planning. After that, they would meet whenever the

accused came to Bilaspur. In para 14 of her cross-examination, she

admitted that during their visits, they would go to the garden together

and also to the movies. She completed her B.Sc. Nursing in 2016.

She further admitted that she had turned 18 in 2014. She also

admitted that she knew what was good for her and what was bad for

her. She admitted that she knew not to have physical relations with

any other man before marriage. In para 15 of her cross-examination,

she admitted that she first had physical relations with the accused in

2015 at the accused's rented house in Brahman Para, Raipur. She

11

further admitted that the accused's rented house is surrounded by a

densely populated area, and people live there.

16.Barkha Sahu (PW-12) stated that in 2014, while the accused's

mother was admitted to Apollo Hospital, the accused and the victim

met and began talking. The victim told her that during their

conversations, the accused told her that he loved her and would

marry her. The victim told her that the accused, promising to marry

her, first had physical relations with her in a rented house in Purani

Basti. While the victim and she were pursuing their M.Sc., the

accused would come and take her to various hotels in Bhilai, luring

her with the promise of marriage, and then forcefully have physical

relations with her.

17.It is an admitted position from the deposition of PW-10 that she was

a major throughout the period of the alleged relationship. She has

categorically admitted in cross-examination that she started talking

to the accused on the phone from the year 2014. She admitted that

during their visits, they would go to the garden together and also to

the movies. She also admitted that she knew what was good for her

and what was bad for her. She admitted that she knew not to have

physical relations with any other man before marriage. She also

admitted that she first had physical relations with the accused in

2015 at the accused's rented house in Brahman Para, Raipur. She

further admitted that the accused's rented house is surrounded by a

densely populated area, and people live there. These admissions

12

strongly reflect voluntary participation and negate the allegation of

any immediate coercion, force, or deception at the initial stage.

18.Regarding the allegation of forcible intercourse in the year 2015, the

victim did not lodge any report. There is no medical evidence,

contemporaneous record, or independent witness to support this

allegation. The long and unexplained delay seriously erodes the

credibility of this allegation. The medical evidence also does not

support the prosecution. Dr.Kiran Dhruv (PW-4) found no injuries.

19.It is the trite law that a conviction for rape can be sustained solely on

the testimony of the victim, provided that her evidence inspires

confidence in the mind of the Court and appears to be natural and

truthful. However, if the version given by the victim is inconsistent,

unsupported by any medical evidence, or the whole surrounding

circumstances are highly improbable and believable in the case set

up by the victim, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of

the prosecutrix. (See: Birka Shiva v The State of Telangana

decided on 16-7-2025 in SLP (Cr.) No.1445 of 2025).

20.In view of these material contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging

the FIR, absence of medical or ocular corroboration, and the

complete lack of proof of any threat or force exerted upon the vicitm,

this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to

the benefit of doubt.

13

21.The Supreme Court has consistently held that a consensual

relationship between adults, even if based on a promise to marry

which later fails, does not amount to rape unless the promise was

false from the very beginning and made solely to obtain sexual

consent. Nothing on record in the present case establishes that the

appellant entertained any dishonest intention from the inception. The

prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients required for

conviction under Sections 376 or 417 IPC.

22.From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, particularly the

statement of the victim who has categorically stated that the

appellant has done sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of

marriage and whenever the appellant has done the sexual

intercourse she has not raised any objection and also did not make

any noise to escape from the hands of the appellant on the count

that the appellant will marry with her. She has also stated that she

knew the accused. The evidence of the victim would clearly

demonstrate that there was consensual sexual inter course. Since

the vicitm was not below the age 16 years and the evidence brought

on record would demonstrate that she is a consenting party,

therefore, on the pretext of marriage, sexual intercourse committed

by the appellant will fall within the ambit of rape or not, has been

examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Maheshwar

Tigga v State of Jharkhand, (2020)10 SCC 108 wherein the

Supreme Court has held paragraph 17,18, 19 and 20 which is as

under:-

14

17.This court recently in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar

vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2019 SC

327 and in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of

Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out

of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in similar

circumstances where the relationship originated in a love

affair, developed over a period of time accompanied by

physical relations, consensual in nature, but the marriage

could not fructify because the parties belonged to different

castes and communities, quashed the proceedings.

18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

facts and circumstances of the present case and are of

the considered opinion that the appellant did not make

any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of

marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship

between the parties. The prosecutrix was herself aware of

the obstacles in their relationship because of different

religious beliefs. An engagement ceremony was also held

in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be

overcome, but unfortunately differences also arose

whether the marriage was to solemnised in the Church or

in a Temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold

on the evidence available that the appellant right from the

inception did not intend to marry the prosecutrix ever and

had fraudulently misrepresented only in order to establish

physical relation with her. The prosecutrix in her letters

acknowledged that the appellant's family was always very

nice to her.

19. The appellant has been acquitted of the charge under

Section 420 and 504 IPC. No appeal has been preferred

against the acquittal. There is no medical evidence on

record to sustain the conviction under Section 323 I.P.C.

15

No offence is made out against the appellant under

Section 341 I.P.C. considering the statement of

prosecutrix that she had gone to live with the appellant for

15 days of her own volition.

20. We have no hesitation in concluding that the consent

of the prosecutrix was but a conscious and deliberated

choice, as distinct from an involuntary action or denial and

which opportunity was available to her, because of her

deep-seated love for the appellant leading her to willingly

permit him liberties with her body, which according to

normal human behaviour are permitted only to a person

with whom one is deeply in love. The observations in this

regard in Uday (supra) are considered relevant:

"25...It usually happens in such cases, when

two young persons are madly in love, that they

promise to each other several times that come

what may, they will get married. As stated by

the prosecutrix the appellant also made such a

promise on more than one occasion. In such

circumstances the promise loses all

significance, particularly when they are

overcome with emotions and passion and find

themselves in situations and circumstances

where they, in a weak moment, succumb to the

temptation of having sexual relationship. This

is what appears to have happened in this case

as well, and the prosecutrix willingly consented

to having sexual intercourse with the appellant

with whom she was deeply in love, not

because he promised to desired In marry her,

but because she also it. circumstances it would

be very these difficult to impute to the appellant

knowledge that the prosecutrix had consented

in consequence of a misconception of fact

arising from his promise. In any event, it was

not possible for the appellant to know what

was in the mind of the prosecutrix when she

consented, because there were more reasons

16

than one for her to consent."

23.Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahesh Damu Khare

v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) 11 SCC 398, held thus at

para 34:

“34.In our opinion, the longer the duration of the

physical relationship between the partners without

protest and insistence by the female partner for

marriage would be indicative of a consensual

relationship rather than a relationship based on false

promise of marriage by the male partner and thus,

based on misconception of fact.”

24.The Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Gualti v. State of

Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 has held as under at paras 21, 26 &

27:-

"21. Consent may be express or implied, coerced or

misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit.

Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by

deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the

good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction

between rape and consensual sex and in a case like

this, the court must very carefully examine whether

the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim,

or had mala fide motives, and had made a false

promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the

latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.

There is a distinction between the mere breach of a

promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the

court must examine whether there was made, at an

early stage a false promise of marriage by the

17

accused; and whether the consent involved was given

after wholly, understanding the nature and

consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a

case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual

intercourse on account of her love and passion for the

accused, and not solely on account of mis-

representation made to her by the accused, or where

an accused on account of circumstances which he

could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his

control, was unable to marry her, despite having every

intention to do so. Such cases must be treated

differently. An accused can be convicted for rape only

if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of

the accused was mala fide, and that he had

clandestine motives.

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

26. To conclude, the prosecutrix had left her home

voluntarily, of her own free will to get married to the

appellant. She was 19 years of age at the relevant

time and was, hence, capable of understanding the

complications and issues surrounding her marriage to

the appellant. According to the version of events

provided by her, the prosecutrix had called the

appellant on a number given to her by him, to ask him

why he had not met her at the place that had been

pre-decided by them. She also waited for him for a

long time, and when he finally arrived she went with

him to the Karna lake where they indulged in sexual

intercourse. She did not raise any objection at this

stage and made no complaints to any one. Thereafter,

she also went to Kurukshetra with the appellant,

where she lived with his relatives. Here to, the

18

prosecutrix voluntarily became intimate with the

appellant. She then, for some reason, went to live in

the hostel at Kurukshetra University illegally, and once

again came into contact with the appellant at the Birla

Mandir. Thereafter, she even proceeded with the

appellant to the old bus-stand in Kurukshetra, to leave

for Ambala so that the two of them could get married

in court at Ambala. However, here they were

apprehended by the police.

27. If the prosecutrix was in fact going to Ambala to

marry the appellant, as stands fully established from

the evidence on record, we fail to understand on what

basis the allegation of "false promise of marriage" has

been raised by the prosecutrix. We also fail to

comprehend the circumstances in which a charge of

deceit/rape can be leveled against the appellant, in

light of the afore-mentioned fact situation."

25.In light of evidence brought on record and on above stated legal

position, it is quite clear that on the pretext of marriage sexual

intercourse is not a rape, therefore, appellant deserves to be

acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC.

26.Upon careful consideration of the evidence on record, particularly

the deposition and cross-examination of the victim (PW-10), this

Court finds that the victim was a major at the relevant time and

had been in a long-standing relationship with the appellant since

2014. Her own admissions reveal that the parties were in regular

contact, met voluntarily, travelled together, and maintained a

19

relationship over several years. She has further admitted that she

was aware of the nature and consequences of such a relationship.

27.The material on record indicates that the relationship between the

parties developed gradually and was accompanied by continued

interaction and mutual association. The victim did not raise any

complaint at the initial stage of the alleged physical relations in

2015, nor is there any contemporaneous evidence or medical

corroboration supporting allegations of force. The delay in lodging

the FIR, coupled with material inconsistencies in her statements,

creates doubt regarding the prosecution’s version.

28.In light of the settled legal position, a consensual relationship

between adults does not amount to rape unless it is established

that the consent was obtained on the basis of a false promise of

marriage made with no intention of being fulfilled from the very

inception. In the present case, the evidence does not establish

that the appellant had any such fraudulent or dishonest intention

at the inception of the relationship. Rather, the circumstances

indicate a relationship arising out of mutual affection which

subsequently did not culminate in marriage. Further, there is no

material to demonstrate that the appellant engaged in the

relationship with the prosecutrix on account of her caste or with

the intention of committing an offence under the Atrocities Act.

Mere knowledge of the prosecutrix’s caste, in the absence of any

20

evidence of intentional exploitation on that basis, is insufficient to

attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the said Act.

29.In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond

reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed forcible sexual

intercourse with the victim or induced her into sexual relations on

the basis of a false promise of marriage made with dishonest

intent from the very inception, or that such acts were committed

on account of her belonging to the Satnami caste.

30.Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376

(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act cannot

be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

31.For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the

conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376 (2)(n)

of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act are hereby set

aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges levelled

against him. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be set at

liberty at once if not required in any other case.

32.In view of above, I.A.No.02/2026 for urgent hearing and

I.A.No.03/2026 for grant of temporary bail stand disposed of.

33.Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Now

Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the

appellant is directed to furnish a personal bonds in terms of from

21

No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of

Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties in the like amount before the

Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six

months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of

special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of

leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall

appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

34.The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and

necessary action.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Bablu