1 2025:CGHC:54898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7851 of 2025 Indal Markam S/o Late Shri Holiram Markam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Jagtakapa, Up-Tehsil - Pathariya, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - City Kotwali Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.11.2025 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. 392/2025 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Mungeli District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 332(C), 74, 75(2), 76, 351(3) of BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution story in short is that, on 31.08.2025 complainant victim lodge the report at Police Station Kotwali Mungeli against the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.12 12:26:33 +0530 2 applicant with the averment that on 30.08.2025 at about 6 Pm when she was alone in the house applicant reached to her house and asked for favor of sex in toxicant position and caught hold her tried to outrage the modesty of victim by pulling her cloth and press the breast therefore she informed the incident to the family members and villagers and lodge the report in which the offences as mentioned above is registered and applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The present case by the complainant/victim, who lodged a false report against him due to political rivalry, as the applicant is the elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Jagtakapa. The victim’s family has been dissatisfied with the applicant’s election to the post of Sarpanch and, ever since, has been attempting to create grounds for his removal. In furtherance of this motive, a false report was lodged after a meeting was conducted in the village. The victim is a major woman, and it is highly improbable for the 50-year-old applicant to have committed the alleged act. The applicant is a married man of good reputation in the village and cannot even think of such conduct. In her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim did not level any allegation of outraging her modesty; however, the police subsequently recorded a statement introducing such allegations and arrested the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to village rivalry, and it is pertinent to mention that he had already lodged a complaint against the complainant on 25.08.2025, whereas the present report was filed five days thereafter as a counterblast. The 3 investigation has been completed, and the charge-sheet is to be filed, but no reliable or cogent evidence has been collected by the prosecution to show that the applicant used any force upon the victim, as the MLC report does not indicate any injury or marks of resistance on her body. The applicant, being the sole breadwinner of his family, is in custody, causing immense hardship to his dependents. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case the applicant has two previous criminal antecedents, therefore, he is not entitled to be granted bail 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and further considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 31.08.2025, and also that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some more time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. 7. Let applicant, Indal Markam involved in Crime No. 392/2025 4 registered at Police Station : City Kotwali Mungeli District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 332(C), 74, 75(2), 76, 351(3) of BNS 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 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 vaibhav