01Facts
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.
p. 2On 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.
p. 3A 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.
p. 3Her clothes were torn, her modesty outraged, and a video of her semi-nude state was recorded and circulated via mobile phone.
p. 3The Appellants were identified through a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and specific recoveries (a mobile phone from Tinesh and a stick from Nimal) were made.
p. 502Issues
i.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.
p. 4/5ii.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.
p. 503Law Applied
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.
p. 2It 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).
p. 2The court applied Sections 66 and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 regarding the electronic transmission of obscene material.
p. 2Provisions in the judgment · 4
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 14(A)Section 3(2)(v)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 296, 351(2), 115(2), 109(1), 221, 132, 74, 76, 309(4), 309(6), 3(5), 310(2), 121(1), 77, 351(3)
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66, 67(A)
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the nature of the crime—assaulting and stripping a female police officer on duty—is of an exceptionally grave nature.
p. 5While 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.
p. 4/5The 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.
p. 5The 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.
p. 505Holding
The High Court answered both issues in the negative and held that the 'Impugned Orders' passed by the trial court were just, legal, and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
p. 5Consequently, 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.
p. 5/6Original Court PDF
BANMALI RATHIYAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
