1 CGHC010239822026 2026:CGHC:27682 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5915 of 2026 Kunwar Singh @ Pappu S/o Shri Shivnarayan Singh Gond Aged About 35 Years Caste- Gond, R/o Village Patelpara, Jadhari, P.S. Khadgawan, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.07.2026 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. 38/2026 registered at Police Station : Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 332(b), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, in brief, on 11.03.2026 at about 10:00 P.M., the present applicant allegedly trespassed into the house of the prosecutrix, threatened her with dire consequences, and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. It is alleged RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 that, due to fear and intimidation, the prosecutrix could not immediately approach the police and subsequently lodged the FIR on 16.03.2026. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, medical and other relevant evidence was collected, and upon completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 332(b), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whereafter the case is presently pending for trial before the competent Court. Hence, this bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity and monetary disputes with the prosecutrix and her son. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is about 65 years of age, whereas the applicant is 35 years old, and the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of five days, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. He further submits that the medical examination does not support the allegations, as no external or internal injuries were found, no redness, swelling or injuries were noticed over the vulva, vagina or perineum, and no stain marks were detected on the body or clothes of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case, inasmuch as the prosecutrix stated in the FIR that she reported the incident to the police on 16.03.2026 along with her son, whereas her son, Ramratan, in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, stated that he had attended a marriage ceremony on 11.03.2026 and returned to the village only on 3 12.03.2026, thereby creating serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since 17.03.2026, and the charge- sheet has already been filed, 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. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious and specific in nature. It is contended that the prosecutrix has consistently supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded during the investigation, and the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained. It is further submitted that the evidence collected during the investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant, and considering the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial. She also submits that the applicant has one more criminal antecedent of the similar nature of the year 2013. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the admitted delay of five days in lodging the FIR, the 4 defence plea of previous enmity and monetary dispute between the parties, the material contradictions pointed out by the applicant in the prosecution version, the medical examination report which does not disclose any external or internal injuries or other signs supporting the allegation, the applicant has one criminal antecedent of the year 2013 which is old and stale, the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court, and he is in jail since 17.03.2026, 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. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let applicant, Kunwar Singh @ Pappu, involved in Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station : Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 332(b), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 5 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 Rahul Dewangan