Facts
The applicant, Rahul Sharma, was arrested on 16.01.2026 in connection with Crime No. 44/2026 at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur.
Source reference: para. 2, 3The victim alleged that while she was acquainted with the applicant, he assaulted her at a hotel, forcibly established physical relations without her consent, and criminally intimidated her.
Source reference: para. 2Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet.
Source reference: para. 2The applicant moved this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending that the relationship was consensual and long-standing, supported by prison visitation records where the victim identified herself as his wife.
Source reference: para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS considering the allegations of sexual assault and the evidence on record.
Source reference: para. 1, 6Law Applied
Section 64 (punishment for rape), Section 351(2) (criminal intimidation), Section 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), Section 127 (wrongful confinement), and Section 308(2) (extortion or related offence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: para. 1Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding the evidentiary value of statements recorded by a Magistrate.
Source reference: para. 4, 6Section 483 of the BNSS regarding the High Court’s power to grant bail.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The court evaluated the conflicting claims of a consensual relationship versus forcible assault.
Source reference: no citationWhile the applicant relied on jail visitation records to establish consent, the court observed that at the bail stage, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS provided a consistent and detailed account of forcible relations and intimidation.
Source reference: para. 4, 6Furthermore, the court found that the medical examination report (MLC) revealed injuries that corroborated the victim’s allegations of assault.
Source reference: para. 4, 6The court reasoned that since the medical evidence prima facie supported the prosecution's case and the offences were grave in nature, the evidentiary value of the defense's documents (jail records) remained a matter for trial.
Source reference: para. 6Holding
The court answered the issue in the negative, holding that it was not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail given the gravity of the offence and the corroborative medical evidence.
The bail application was rejected.
Source reference: para. 7The court granted the trial court liberty to conclude the trial expeditiously and directed a copy of the order to be sent for compliance.
Source reference: para. 8, 9Original Court PDF
RAHUL SHARMAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in