1 2026:CGHC:24485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5261 of 2026 Kashiram Jangde S/o Shri Surraj Jangade Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Dharmutola Thana Gaindatola District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 17.06.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2026, registered at Police Station - Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2) (K) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant has lodged report the concerned police station that as per FIR on 13.01.2026 at about 5.00 p.m. the victim and Kanshiram Jangade went to Madai Mela, they Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.06.18 18:10:58 +0530 2 were consumed liquor and committed subject offences thereafter, Kanshiram Jangade met with the co-accused at Madai Mela and stated dropped to the victim at their house, thereafter, the victim's sister lodged FIR for the offence punishable under section 64(2) (k), 3(5) of B.N.S. against the present applicant and others accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and no other case is registered or pending against him. It is further submitted that the medical examination report of the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution case inasmuch as no external injury was found on her body and there were no signs suggestive of forcible sexual intercourse. Though the doctor has opined that sexual assault cannot be completely ruled out, the medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse and, therefore, creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant and the prosecutrix are residents of the same village and were well acquainted with each other prior to the alleged incident. The prosecutrix was allegedly having an extra-marital relationship with the applicant and both used to meet each other voluntarily and with consent. However, after the said relationship came to the knowledge of her family members, a false report has been lodged against the applicant in order to avoid social stigma and family disputes. It is also submitted that co-accused Rikesh Lautre has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court in MCRC No. 3715/2026 vide order dated 23.04.2026 and the present applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant 3 is in judicial custody since 15.01.2026, the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are specific allegations against the present applicant of committing rape upon the prosecutrix. He submits that in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that it was the present applicant who committed rape upon her. Learned State counsel further submits that no such allegation of rape has been levelled against co-accused Rikesh Lautre and, therefore, the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing and he cannot claim parity with the said co-accused. It is further submitted that the FSL report supports the prosecution case and the report has been found positive. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS specifically attributing the act of rape to the present applicant, the positive FSL report supporting the prosecution case, and further considering that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Rikesh Lautre who has already been enlarged on bail, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Kashiram Jangde 4 involved in Crime No. 23/2026, registered at Police Station: Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 64(2) (K) & 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti