1 2025:CGHC:55557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9178 of 2025 Talesh @ Lalu S/o Dhansai Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Pouna, Police Station- Mulmula, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Shivarinarayan, (As Per F.I.R.) District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Wrongly Mention P.S. Mulmula In Impugned Order) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Subha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.11.2025 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. 335/2025 registered at Police Station – Shivarinarayan District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.11.17 14:30:12 +0530 2 Sections 332(B), 75(1)(i) 64(2) (F) & 351(3) of the BNS 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on dated 16/08/2025 at about 10 P.M., applicant entered in the room of Complainant/Victim and started to pushing her breast as well as trying to inter his finger in her private part, when she assaulted him through kick then he meanwhile away run threatened her matter be disclosed amongst any one then he killed her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant has no involvement in the alleged offence, but has been falsely implicated by the prosecution authorities, that the applicant has never been prosecuted or implicated in any criminal case prior to this incident; that the actual fact of the matter is that the applicant’s wife is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant and, due to an ongoing property dispute between the families, she had visited her parental home along with the applicant and their children seeking her share in the ancestral property, and in order to pressurize her to give up her rightful share, the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in the alleged offence; that the prosecution authorities failed to inquire into the true facts and, with mala fide intention, wrongly arrested the applicant though no offence is made out against him, thereby entitling him to be released on bail; that, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no prima facie involvement of the applicant is reflected in the alleged crime. He also submits that the present applicant 3 has been in jail since 18.08.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant entered the victim’s room at night, tried to molest her, and attempted to sexually assault her. When she resisted, he fled but threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The allegations reveal serious offences of sexual assault and criminal intimidation, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegation and the material available in the case diary, and upon perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it appears that the applicant, who is her brother-in-law, on 16.08.2025 at around 10:00 p.m., forcibly entered her room while she was sleeping with her daughter and attempted to outrage her modesty by molesting her and making sexual advances. When she resisted, the applicant assaulted her, fled away from the spot, and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone, resulting in various injuries to the victim as 4 reflected in her MLC report. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail 7. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicant – Talesh @ Lalu, involved in Crime No. 335/2025 registered at Police Station – Shivarinarayan District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 332(B), 75(1)(i) 64(2) (F) & 351(3) of the BNS 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (RameshSinha) Chief Justice vaibhav