1 2026:CGHC:16376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3207 of 2026 Rakesh Kumar Dhruv S/o. Late Jawaharlal Dhruv Aged About 39 Years R/o.- Village- Bogar, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, Village- Karmoti, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.43/2026, registered at Police Station Bhanupratapur, Kanker District – Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution story, upon perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that Crime No. 43/2026 has been registered at Police Station Bhanupatrapur, District Kanker, for the offence punishable under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wherein it is alleged that on 17.11.2025, thereafter within 4–5 days, and again on 16.02.2026 between 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM, the applicant/accused, on multiple occasions, firstly outside his residence and subsequently twice at the workplace of the victim i.e., Post Office Bogar, with the intention to outrage her modesty and insult her dignity, caught hold of her hands and arms, pulled her and touched her back, cheeks, face, neck and chest, thereby using criminal force against her and further that the applicant, being a married man, under the pretext of introducing the victim to his wife in connection with postal insurance work, called her to his house and while she was leaving, again held her hands and arms and inappropriately touched her back and thereafter at her workplace, which is a public place, in the presence of other persons, repeated such acts of molestation, thus prima facie indicating that the applicant intentionally and repeatedly used criminal force against the victim with an oblique motive, which constitutes a serious offence falling within the ambit of sexual harassment of a woman. Based upon such, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed the alleged offence, further submits that the 3 alleged incidents are stated to have occurred between 17.11.2025 to 16.02.2026, however, the written complaint was lodged only on 16.02.2026, which reflects an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, it is also submitted that the applicant is serving as a Constable in SSB and is presently posted in Jammu & Kashmir and undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court in the event of grant of bail. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and the applicant is in custody since 17.02.2026. It is also contended that though two criminal cases were previously registered against the applicant, i.e., Criminal Case No. 555/2021 under Sections 294, 323, 506 IPC decided on 07.04.2022 and Criminal Case No. 799/2023 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 294, 342 IPC decided on 22.03.2023, in both the cases the applicant has been acquitted and no other criminal case is pending against him except the present one. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that, from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it is clearly reflected that the applicant has, on multiple occasions, used criminal force against the victim with the intention to outrage her modesty at different places including a public workplace, which prima facie discloses a serious offence falling within the ambit of sexual harassment of a woman. It is further submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the 4 allegations and the conduct of the applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, especially at this initial stage of the case, as there remains a strong likelihood of his absconding or repeating similar offences, moreover, the criminal antecedents of the applicant also indicate his tendency towards criminal behaviour, therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the applicant be not granted bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant and on perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, this Court finds that there are specific and prima facie allegations against the applicant of repeatedly using criminal force against the victim with an intent to outrage her modesty at different places including a public workplace which constitutes a serious offence falling within the ambit of sexual harassment of a woman, further taking into consideration the conduct of the applicant, who despite being a member of SSB has allegedly committed such acts reflecting a depraved mindset and also considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant indicating his tendency towards criminal behaviour, this Court is of the opinion that at this initial stage, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant – Rakesh Kumar Dhruv, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 5 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.43/2026, registered at Police Station Bhanupratapur, Kanker District – Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita is hereby rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal