1 2026:CGHC:7120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1405 of 2026 Sandeep Sonwani S/o Ramavtar Sonwani Aged About 27 Years R/o Pachawal, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Out Post Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.02.2026 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. 92/2025 registered at Police Station – Out Post Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(1), 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution in brief is that the contents of the FIR (the copy of the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.11 10:22:03 +0530 2 FIR not being filed herewith as the case pertains to Section 64(2) of the B.N.S. and falls within the exceptional category), is that the mother of the victimlodged a report at Police Station Balrampur stating that her daughter is deaf and mute since birth and is mentally challenged, having limited hearing capacity and communicating only through gestures. A few days prior to the lodging of the report, while the victim was changing her clothes, her mother suspected that she might be pregnant. She was thereafter taken to a hospital for medical examination, where it was found that she was about seven months pregnant. On being asked about the cause, the victim, through gestures, indicated that the accused, who is a married person, had committed sexual assault upon her on two occasions. On the basis of the said report, a crime was registered against the applicant under Section 64(2) of the B.N.S., and investigation was set into motion. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid offence and that the report was lodged by the mother of the victim merely on the basis of suspicion, while the police deliberately added other offences and wrongly involved the applicant in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant is a neighbour of the victim, and the victim is a physically challenged woman. It is argued that although the applicant has been alleged to have committed rape upon the victim, the DNA report does not support the said allegation. It is further submitted that, so far as the trial is concerned, out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses, namely the victim and her mother have been examined till date. The applicant has been in jail since 11.08.2025 and, to the best knowledge of his family, has no previous criminal antecedents. Considering the 3 facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Section 64(2) of the B.N.S. is not made out against the present applicant. Hence, she prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and clearly disclose the commission of an offence under Section 64(2) of the B.N.S. It is further submitted that the victim, through gestures, indicated the involvement of the accused, a married person, who committed sexual assault upon her on two occasions, and on the basis of such disclosure, a crime was duly registered and investigation was initiated. As such, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the victim is a physically challenged woman and the statement of the victim, recorded through sign language, clearly and categorically implicates the applicant and attributes commission of the offence to him on two occasions, further, merely because the DNA report does not support the prosecution case against the applicant, the same by itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the direct and specific allegations levelled by the victim, the trial is still at an early stage and only two out of eleven prosecution witnesses have been examined, in view of the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not it a fit 4 case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sandeep Sonwani, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 92/2025 registered at Police Station – Out Post Ganeshmod, Police Station Balrampur District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(1), 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m) of the BNS, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. 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