1 CGHC010310972026 2026:CGHC:36034 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7494 of 2026 1 - Ramprasad Banjara S/o Shri Mahesh Banjara Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill. Risora, P.S. And Tahsil Sariya District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 – The State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer-In-Charge P.S. Sariya, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh- RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV 2 Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(k), 54, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1189 of 2026. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.10.2025, the victim, a 25- year-old woman with hearing and speech impairment, was found by her younger sister lying naked inside an old deserted house, where co- accused Durgesh Nishad was allegedly found in a compromising position with her and the present applicant, Ramprasad Banjara, was also present. On seeing them, the applicant allegedly fled from the spot. The victim, through sign language, allegedly communicated to her family members that both the accused had sexually assaulted her. On the report lodged by the victim’s younger sister, Crime No. 239/2025 was registered at Police Station Sariya for the aforesaid offences. The accused persons were arrested on 15.10.2025, and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. 4. 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 specific allegation of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix is attributed to the co-accused Durgesh Nishad, whereas no specific overt act of committing sexual intercourse has been attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person having 75% disability and considering his physical condition and the nature of the allegations attributed to him, his custodial detention is not warranted. Learned counsel submits that the material available on 3 record does not prima facie establish the applicant’s direct involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.10.2025, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed. So far as the progress of the trial is concerned, out of the total 21 prosecution witnesses only 7 witnesses have been examined so far. The trial is is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, further detention of the applicant would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, taking into consideration the period of custody already undergone, completion of investigation, filing of the charge- sheet, the applicant’s physical condition and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix is a person with hearing and speech impairment. It is further submitted that the sister of the prosecutrix has made specific allegations against the present applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., regarding his presence and involvement in the alleged incident. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material available on record, it is submitted that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the fact that 4 the prosecutrix is a person with hearing and speech impairment, this Court finds that the statement of her sister recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. contains specific allegations regarding the presence and involvement of the present applicant in the alleged incident. The material available on record, at this stage, cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that the specific allegation of sexual intercourse has been attributed to the co-accused. It is further taken into consideration that the applicant’s first bail application has already been rejected by this Court and no substantial change in the circumstances has been brought on record so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The trial is still in progress and material witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus, there is no significant change in the circumstances since the rejection of the earlier bail application. At this stage, considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material available on record and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Consequently, the bail application preferred by the applicant Ramprasad Banjara in connection with Crime No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(k), 54, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, deserves to be and is hereby rejected at this stage. 9. The trial Court concerned is directed to make every endeavour to 5 conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. 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