1 CGHC010291422026 2026:CGHC:33194 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6974 of 2026 1 - Krishna Yadav S/o Paradeshi Yadav, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Dodekhurd, Ward No. 06, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. This is the first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who is in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 657/2024 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, a 35-year-old widow, lodged a written complaint alleging that while she was sleeping alone at a grocery shop owned by Rajesh Manikpuri in Village Dodekhurd on the intervening night of 15/16.10.2024, the present applicant forcibly entered the premises and established physical relations with her against her will. It is further alleged that when the complainant resisted, the applicant abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. It is also alleged that on the night of 30.10.2024, the applicant again came to the complainant's place, continuously knocked on the door, hurled abuses and extended threats, whereupon the complainant fled to her residence out of fear. Thereafter, on 31.10.2024, she lodged a written complaint at Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur, on the basis of which the present crime was registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences and the investigation was taken up. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant and the prosecutrix, who is a widow, are distantly related and were in a consensual relationship. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.11.2024 and no further custodial interrogation is required. It is also submitted that 4 out of the 14 prosecution witnesses, including the prosecutrix, have already been examined before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the trial is likely to take considerable time 3 to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further judicial custody. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that although the prosecutrix is a widow, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the learned trial Court, she has categorically supported the prosecution case and stated that the applicant committed rape upon her at knife-point and continuously harassed her. It is, therefore, contended that, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the evidence of the prosecutrix, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific allegations made against the applicant, the fact that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has supported the prosecution case before the learned trial Court and has specifically alleged that the applicant committed rape upon her at knife-point and continuously harassed her, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to allow the present bail application. Consequently, the bail application stands rejected. 4 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the case independently, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 Ruchi