Bail Denied Where Protestors Outraged Modesty and Physically Assaulted Female Police Officer performing Official Duties.

The Appellants challenged the orders dated 17/03/2026 and 04/04/2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raigarh, which rejected their regular bail applications.

On 27.12.2025, during a protest regarding Jindal Company at H.P. Chowk, Tamnar, a mob of protestors became violent despite police appeals for peace.

A female police constable (the victim) was chased into a field, surrounded by 7-8 persons, and subjected to a brutal physical and sexual assault with the intent to kill.

Her clothes were torn, her modesty outraged, and a video of her semi-nude state was recorded and circulated via mobile phone.

The Appellants were identified through a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and specific recoveries (a mobile phone from Tinesh and a stick from Nimal) were made.

1. Whether the trial court erred in law by rejecting the bail applications of the Appellants given that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

2. Whether the gravity of the offense and the nature of the allegations involving the assault on a public servant (woman police official) outweigh the Appellants' right to liberty during the pendency of the trial.

The court primarily applied Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 regarding appeals against bail orders.

It considered various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including Sections 296 (Obscene acts), 351 (Criminal intimidation), 115 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 109 (Attempt to murder), 132 (Assault on public servant), 74 and 76 (Outraging modesty/Sexual harassment), and 310 (Dacoity/Robbery).

The court applied Sections 66 and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 regarding the electronic transmission of obscene material.

The Court observed that the nature of the crime—assaulting and stripping a female police officer on duty—is of an exceptionally grave nature.

While the Appellants argued they were falsely implicated and that the trial would be prolonged due to 63 witnesses, the Court found prima facie evidence of their active participation through the TIP and the recovery of incriminating objects.

The Court reasoned that since the trial had not yet commenced and the victim’s statement before the court was pending, granting bail at this stage would be inappropriate.

The Court emphasized that the victims were state officials performing their lawful duties to maintain law and order, and a violent attack on such officials constitutes a serious circumstance that negates the grounds for bail.

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeals and rejected the bail applications for both Appellants; the Registry was directed to communicate this order to the trial court immediately.