1 2025:CGHC:39313 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6214 of 2025 Ramadhar Yadav S/o Late Vilash Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o Bhambhori P.S.- Dev, District Aurangabad (Bihar), Current Address- Sukhram Nagar Gogav, P.S. Gudhiyari District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Gudhiyari District Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 688/2024 registered at Police Station : Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 70 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution's story, in brief, is that the victim submitted a written complaint on 18.11.2024 at Police Station Gudhiyari, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Raipur, stating that she resides at Sukhram Nagar, Gogaon, within the jurisdiction of Gudhiyari Police Station, Raipur, in a rented house with her husband and children. Her husband, Anil Khobragade, is employed at Tirgaon, within the jurisdiction of Baihar Police Station, Paraswada District, Madhya Pradesh. Bijju Markam, who is the son of her husband’s aunt and is thus related to her as a brother-in-law, had come to their house as a guest. On 29.10.2024, during the festival of Dhanteras, after all family members had dinner, her husband went to sleep, and she remained outside in the courtyard cleaning utensils. At about 10:30 p.m., Bijju Markam, who was sitting in the rented room of Ramadhar Yadav, called her. When she went to Ramadhar’s room and asked Bijju Markam the reason for calling her, he said nothing, and she turned back to resume cleaning utensils. At that moment, Bijju Markam allegedly gagged her by pressing her mouth, pulled her into the room, and laid her on a cot. Ramadhar Yadav then closed the door of the room. As her mouth was gagged, she could not scream. It is alleged that Bijju Markam held her hands over her head, restrained her legs, and thereafter Ramadhar Yadav forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. During this incident, Bijju Markam allegedly attempted to record a video on his mobile phone. It is further alleged that subsequent to this act, Bijju Markam also forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the alleged offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present 3 case. He submits that though in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim, who is a married woman, levelled allegations of rape against both the applicant and one Bijju Markam (her brother-in-law), in her deposition before the trial Court she specifically attributed the act of rape only to her brother-in-law, Bijju Markam, and categorically stated that she does not recognize the present applicant. He also submits that the medical examination report of the victim does not disclose any external or internal injuries, nor is there any supporting MLC or FSL report to corroborate the allegation against the applicant. He further submits that the present applicant has no any criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 06.01.2025 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, involving heinous offences of gang rape and criminal conspiracy, wherein the victim, a married woman, has categorically narrated the sequence of events in her written complaint as well as in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. It is specifically alleged that the applicant, in active participation with co-accused Bijju Markam, restrained the victim, gagged her mouth, and forcibly committed sexual intercourse upon her, while the co-accused attempted to record the 4 incident on a mobile phone. The incident allegedly occurred at night when the victim’s husband was asleep, demonstrating premeditation and exploitation of the victim’s vulnerable position, therefore, the present applicant 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 circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the victim, though a married woman, had levelled allegations of rape against both the applicant and her brother-in-law Bijju Markam, but in her deposition before the trial Court she specifically attributed the alleged act of rape only to her brother-in-law and categorically stated that she does not even recognize the present applicant, further the medical examination report of the victim does not reveal any external or internal injury and there is no corroborative MLC or FSL report supporting the allegation against the applicant, further the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant is in jail since 06.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Ramadhar Yadav, involved in Crime No. 688/2024 registered at Police Station : Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 70 of Bharatiya Nyaya 5 Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount 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 6 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 send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan