1 2026:CGHC:6279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1189 of 2026 Ramprasad Banjara S/o Shri Mahesh Banjara Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Risora, Police Station Sariya, Tehsil Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through O昀케cer-In-Charge, Police Station Sariya, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04.02.2026 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.239/2025, registered at Police Station- Sariya, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(k), 54, 115(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, at 昀椀rst glance, from perusal of the case diary and the record of the case, it appears that in Crime KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 No. 239/2025 registered at Police Station Sariya, o昀昀ences under Section 64(2)(k), Section 54, Section 115(2) and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have been registered against the applicant/accused Ramprasad Banjara and co-accused Durgesh Nishad, and after completion of investigation, a 昀椀nal report (charge- sheet) has been 昀椀led for trial. The material available on record prima facie indicates that the complainant’s elder sister, the victim, who is mentally challenged, was taken on the morning of 14.10.2025 by the applicant/accused and the co-accused to an old abandoned structure, where she was made to lie down and her clothes were removed. Thereafter, the co-accused Durgesh Nishad allegedly touched and fondled the victim’s breasts, private parts and body with his hands and inserted his hand into her vagina, while the present applicant/accused was standing at the door during the incident. The record further re昀氀ects that evidence has been collected showing the presence and active assistance of the applicant/accused at the place of occurrence, namely the old ruin where the alleged incident took place. Based upon such, aforementioned o昀昀ences were registered against the applicant along with co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the alleged o昀昀ence and has not committed any crime against the victim. It is contended that the applicant is a 75% permanently visually disabled person, as certi昀椀ed by the District Medical Board, Raigarh and due to his visual impairment he is not in a position to properly see or 3 identify places, (a copy of the disability certi昀椀cate has been 昀椀led as Annexure A-3). It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint made by Pinky Banjara, the sister of the victim and not by the victim herself. As per the crime detail form submitted by the prosecution, the alleged place of incident is situated in front of the victim’s house and beside the house of Mahesh Banjara. He further draws attention to the medical examination report, which records that no external injuries were found except two scar marks and that the victim was not cooperative during internal examination, it is also noted that the injuries observed were simple in nature. It is also argued that the statements of the victim and her sister recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the BNS reveal that the victim was unable to answer questions and the entire narration was made by her sister, such statement of the sister cannot be treated as substantive evidence at this stage, particularly in the absence of assistance of an interpreter or special educator. It is further submitted that the police arrested the applicant without any cogent evidence and solely on the statement of the victim’s sister. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 15.10.2025 and is a permanently handicapped person su昀昀ering from 75% visual disability. Lastly, it is contended that the material available on record indicates that the applicant was not attempting to commit any o昀昀ence and, as per the statements, he was standing at some distance from the spot and in the present case, charge-sheet has been 昀椀led before the competent Court and the applicant has no 4 criminal antecedent and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that although the main overt sexual act is attributed to co-accused Durgesh Nishad, the present applicant actively assisted him and remained present at the spot during the incident, thereby sharing common intention. His presence near the place of occurrence facilitated the commission of the o昀昀ence, even if he was standing at some distance. The victim is a mentally challenged girl and therefore highly vulnerable. Considering the gravity of the o昀昀ence and the role of the present applicant in aiding the co- accused, this is not a 昀椀t case for grant of bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the o昀昀ence and the material available on record, it appears that the co-accused Durgesh Nishad committed sexual assault upon the victim, who is mentally challenged and thus a highly vulnerable person. The material collected during investigation prima facie shows that the present applicant was present at the spot and assisted the co- accused during the incident, thereby sharing common intention. Though it is argued that the applicant was standing at some distance and is visually disabled, such defence pleas are matters of trial and cannot be examined in detail at this stage. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the role attributed to the present applicant, this Court does not 昀椀nd it to be a 昀椀t case to release the applicant on regular 5 bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of present applicant- Ramprasad Banjara, involved in Crime No.239/2025, registered at Police Station- Sariya, District - Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(k), 54, 115(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. 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