1 CGHC010206812026 2026:CGHC:28998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4898 of 2026 Kamaldhar Mehar S/o Naresh Mehar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Kodhpali, Police Station And Tahsil - Pusor, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (As Per Correct Details) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. For Objector : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/07/2026 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. 01/2026 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64 and 79 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report at Mahila Police Station, Janjgir, on the basis of which Crime No. 01/2026 was registered against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 64 and 79 of the Bharatiya KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is alleged that the present applicant, Kamaldhar Mehar, who is the nandoi (brother-in-law) of the victim, used to visit her matrimonial house frequently and on such occasions, allegedly made obscene gestures towards her. It is further alleged that on 27.09.2024, during the birthday celebration of the victim’s elder brother-in-law's son, namely Viraj, the applicant had also come to attend the function. At about 12:00 midnight, when the husband of the victim had gone outside for playing the DJ and the victim was alone in her room, the applicant allegedly entered the room, bolted the door from inside and caught hold of the victim from behind. Thereafter, he allegedly threw her on the bed and stated that her husband was incapable of satisfying her. It is further alleged that despite resistance and raising alarm by the victim, the applicant gagged her mouth, bit her hand and slapped her, due to which one of her ears became numb and thereafter forcibly established physical relations with her against her will. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present crime was registered and during the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested on 10.04.2026. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He submits that there is no cogent or reliable material available on record to prima facie connect the applicant with the alleged offence and the prosecution has falsely implicated him at the instance of the victim. It is further submitted that the alleged incident is stated to 3 have taken place on 27.09.2024, whereas the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of more than one year, for which no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the victim has already instituted various proceedings against her husband before the Family Court and has also been awarded maintenance of Rs.2,500/-, which clearly indicates that there is an ongoing matrimonial dispute between the victim and her husband. Learned counsel submits that the present applicant, being the nandoi of the victim, has been falsely implicated only with an intention to drag the entire family into the matrimonial dispute. He further submits that the victim has been residing separately from her husband since September, 2024. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the Court and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 10.04.2026 and has two minor children who are dependent upon him for their livelihood. Therefore, considering the period of detention, filing of the charge-sheet and the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant is the nandoi (brother-in-law) of the victim and has been specifically named in the FIR. The victim 4 has made clear, consistent and specific allegations that the applicant had been making obscene gestures towards her whenever he visited her matrimonial house and on the date of the incident, taking advantage of the absence of her husband, forcibly entered her room, bolted the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. He further submits that during the course of investigation, the allegations levelled by the victim have been duly supported by the statements of the prosecution witnesses and other material collected by the investigating agency. It is also submitted that merely because there is delay in lodging the FIR or matrimonial disputes are pending between the victim and her husband, the same by itself cannot be a ground to discard the serious allegations levelled against the present applicant at the stage of consideration of bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the applicant and the material collected during the course of investigation, learned State Counsel prays that the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the objector vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations levelled against the present applicant are extremely serious and grave in nature. He submits that the applicant, who is the nandoi (brother-in- law) of the victim, had been making obscene gestures towards her whenever he visited her matrimonial house and taking advantage of the absence of the victim’s husband, who had gone outside for playing the DJ during the birthday celebration of a family member, forcibly entered the room of the victim at about midnight between 5 12:00 and 1:00 a.m., bolted the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her against her will. He further submits that the First Information Report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before the Magistrate and the statements of other prosecution witnesses collected during investigation clearly establish a strong prima facie case against the applicant. It is further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained by the victim, as immediately after the incident she disclosed the occurrence to her in-laws and close relatives, however, instead of supporting her, they repeatedly threatened and intimidated her not to report the matter to the police on the ground that it was a family issue and warned her that she would have to face serious consequences if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Thereafter, she was allegedly driven out from her matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental house. It is further submitted that despite her repeated requests to her husband to take her back, he refused to do so and also extended threats. Learned counsel further submits that the victim has already initiated maintenance proceedings against her husband before the Family Court, wherein maintenance has been awarded in her favour, which itself demonstrates that she was compelled to live separately and not that the present criminal case is a result of any matrimonial dispute. It is further submitted that even during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant continued to stalk, sexually harass and threaten the victim and demanded that she establish physical 6 relations with him, failing which he threatened to kill her. The applicant and the family members of the victim’s husband have also been continuously pressurising and threatening her to withdraw the present case, in respect whereof separate complaints have already been submitted before the concerned police authorities, including the Superintendent of Police. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the abuse of the fiduciary relationship and trust reposed by the victim, the serious apprehension of witness intimidation and the strong prima facie material collected during investigation, learned counsel for the objector submits that no case for grant of bail is made out and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material collected during the course of investigation, the charge-sheet filed before the competent Court and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made out. The allegations against the present applicant are of a serious nature. The applicant, who is admittedly the nandoi (brother-in-law) of the victim, is alleged to have taken undue advantage of the absence of the victim's husband and during the intervening night of 27.09.2024 at about 12:00 midnight, forcibly entered her room, bolted the door from inside and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. The 7 specific allegations levelled by the victim are consistent and find prima facie support from the material collected during investigation. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the victim. 8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the same does not appear to be fatal to the prosecution case at this stage. The material available on record prima facie indicates that immediately after the incident, the victim disclosed the occurrence to her in-laws and other close relatives, however, instead of extending support, she was allegedly threatened and intimidated by the applicant and the members of her matrimonial family not to disclose the incident to anyone, as it was sought to be treated as a family matter. It has also come on record that the victim was subsequently compelled to leave her matrimonial home and has been residing at her parental house. The explanation furnished for the delay, therefore, cannot be said to be unnatural or improbable, particularly having regard to the social stigma attached to offences of sexual assault committed within the family and the pressure allegedly exerted upon the victim by the applicant and her in-laws. Such delay, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case at the stage of consideration of bail. 9. The contention of the applicant that the present case has been instituted due to matrimonial disputes between the victim and her husband also does not persuade this Court to extend the benefit of bail at this stage, inasmuch as the allegations in the present case are specific and are directed against the present applicant individually. 8 Merely because maintenance proceedings are pending or maintenance has been awarded in favour of the victim would not, by itself, render the allegations of sexual assault against the applicant false or improbable. Furthermore, the material placed on record also indicates that the victim has made complaints alleging that even after registration of the FIR, she has been continuously threatened and pressurised by the applicant and his family members to withdraw the case. Considering the relationship between the parties, the gravity of the accusation, the possibility of influencing or intimidating the victim and other material witnesses, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely, Kamaldhar Mehar, involved in Crime No. 01/2026 registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64 and 79 of BNS, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the concerned trial Court is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal