1 CGHC010285212026 2026:CGHC:35629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7394 of 2026 Ajit Markam S/o Jalesh Markam, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Munmuna, Police Station - Kukdur, District - Kabirdham C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O1cer, Police Station - Kukdur, District - Kabirdham C.G. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. This is the 6rst bail application 6led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 66/2025 registered at Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the o=ences punishable under Sections 109(1), 140(1), 3(5), 137(1)(a) and 64(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.05.2025, the complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the victim, lodged a report KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 at Police Station Kukdur alleging that the victim had been assaulted by accused/applicant Ravi Markam and co-accused Ajit Markam, who allegedly assaulted her, strangulated her and caused injuries to her with an intention to commit her murder, thereafter threw her into a rocky pit in the forest and covered the pit with stones. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 66/2025 came to be registered against the accused persons. During investigation, on the basis of the identi6cation made by witness Chandrabhushan Kosle, the place of occurrence was inspected and the stone allegedly used for covering the victim inside the rocky pit was seized. Thereafter, co- accused Ravi Markam and the present applicant Ajit Markam were apprehended and their memorandum statements were recorded. Pursuant thereto, a motorcycle, mobile phone and clothes allegedly worn by co-accused Ravi Markam were seized, whereas the clothes allegedly worn by the present applicant were also seized. Subsequently, the statement of the victim was recorded by a woman police o1cer, wherein she stated that on 22.05.2025, Ravi Markam called her outside the house of her brother-in-law and thereafter Ravi Markam along with the present applicant forcibly made her sit on a motorcycle and took her towards the forest near Village Bandaura. It is further alleged that Ravi Markam forcibly established sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and thereafter strangulated her with her scarf, assaulted her and threw her into a rocky pit, which was thereafter covered with stones by both the accused persons. In view of the statement of the victim, Sections 137(1)(a) and 64(2)(i) of the B.N.S. were subsequently 3 added. The scarf allegedly used in the incident was also seized and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been 6led before the competent Court and the case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of rape has been speci6cally levelled against co-accused Ravi Markam, whereas the allegation against the present applicant is only that he was standing near the place where the incident had taken place. It is further submitted that it is co-accused Ravi Markam who is alleged to have strangulated the victim with her dupatta and, therefore, the role attributed to the present applicant is clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Ravi Markam. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant, who is the brother-in- law of the victim, has already been examined before the learned trial Court and has not supported the prosecution case against the present applicant. It is also submitted that the victim has already been examined and according to the applicant, she has not attributed any act of rape to the present applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 25.05.2025, the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been 6led. Out of 28 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only two witnesses have been examined till date and, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. It is further submitted that the applicant has no 4 previous criminal antecedents. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the present applicant cannot be considered in isolation from the entire prosecution case. It is submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 could not be recorded as the victim had sustained injuries in the incident and was unable to appear before the concerned Magistrate for recording of her statement. However, her statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS contains speci6c allegations against the present applicant also. Learned State counsel further submits that the medical examination of the victim reveals multiple injuries, including weakness of both upper limbs, an abrasion injury measuring approximately 7 x 2 cm on the neck, crush injury of the great toe, 6rst and second toes of the left foot, an abrasion wound measuring 3 x 2 cm on the great toe of the right foot and a small abrasion wound measuring 1 x 1 cm on the left lumbar region. As per the opinion of the concerned doctor, the victim was referred to another hospital for further management. It is, therefore, submitted that the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous in nature and the role attributed to the present applicant, as reDected from the statement of the victim, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 5 6. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the allegations against the present applicant arise out of an incident in which the victim was allegedly taken to the forest area near Village Bandaura by co-accused Ravi Markam along with the present applicant. The prosecution case further reDects that the victim was subjected to sexual assault by co-accused Ravi Markam and thereafter she was allegedly strangulated, assaulted and thrown into a rocky pit, which was covered with stones. The role attributed to the present applicant is not con6ned merely to his presence at the place of occurrence, as the statement of the victim recorded during investigation under Section 180 of the BNSS contains allegations regarding the applicant accompanying co-accused Ravi Markam and forcibly making the victim sit on the motorcycle and taking her towards the forest. Thus, at this stage, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was merely standing near the place of occurrence cannot be accepted without appreciating the evidence in its entirety during trial. 7. It is also signi6cant that the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS could not be recorded, as stated by learned State counsel, on account of the injuries sustained by her and her inability to appear before the concerned Magistrate. However, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS is available on record and contains allegations against the present applicant. The medical examination of the victim further assumes signi6cance. As per the MLC, the victim was found to have weakness of both upper limbs; an abrasion injury measuring approximately 7 x 2 cm 6 on the neck; crush injury of the great toe, 6rst and second toes of the left foot, an abrasion wound measuring approximately 3 x 2 cm on the great toe of the right foot and a small abrasion wound measuring approximately 1 x 1 cm on the left lumbar region. The medical opinion further records that the victim was referred to another hospital for further management. Thus, the medical evidence prima facie corroborates that the victim had sustained multiple injuries during the alleged occurrence and the nature and circumstances of such injuries cannot be overlooked at the stage of consideration of bail. 8. Further, although learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation of rape is against co-accused Ravi Markam and that the present applicant did not commit any such act, the prosecution case against the applicant is not based upon an allegation of rape alone. The applicant is alleged to have accompanied the co-accused, forcibly made the victim sit on the motorcycle and taken her to the forest, where the subsequent incident is alleged to have occurred. It is also alleged that both the accused persons thereafter covered the victim with stones after she had been thrown into the rocky pit. Therefore, at this stage, the role attributed to the present applicant cannot be completely separated from the role of the co-accused merely on the ground that the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse has speci6cally been attributed to co-accused Ravi Markam. 9. It is true that the complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the victim, has already been examined and according to learned counsel for 7 the applicant, has not supported the prosecution case. However, the testimony of one witness cannot, at this stage, be considered in isolation, particularly when the victim herself has already been examined and the prosecution relies upon her statement as well as the medical evidence and other material collected during investigation. The evidentiary value, credibility and e=ect of the statements of the witnesses are matters which are to be appreciated by the learned trial Court after completion of the entire prosecution evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of consideration of bail. 10.Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available against the applicant, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the allegation that the applicant accompanied co-accused Ravi Markam and forcibly took the victim to the forest, the allegation regarding the subsequent conduct of both the accused persons in throwing the victim into a rocky pit and covering her with stones, the multiple injuries found upon the victim as reDected in the MLC, including the abrasion injury on her neck and crush injuries to the toes, the medical opinion referring her to another hospital for further management and further considering the fact that the victim's statement under Section 183 of the BNSS could not be recorded due to her injured condition, coupled with the fact that important prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a 6t case for grant of regular bail at this stage. 8 11.Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant Ajit Markam, 6led under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 66/2025, registered at Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the o=ences punishable under Sections 109(1), 140(1), 3(5), 137(1)(a) and 64(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is hereby rejected. 12.Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 13.O1ce is directed to send a certi6ed copy of this order to the learned trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal