Bail denied where sexual assault allegations, victim’s supporting statement, and criminal antecedents weigh against release.

The applicant was arrested in connection with Crime No. 394/2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja, for offences under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 191(2), 126(2), 74, 75(2), 78, 238 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that on 10 June 2026, the applicant intercepted the victim near Mission Hospital, pulled her from a scooter, made unwanted physical contact with her, and attempted to kiss her.

It was further alleged that he subsequently returned with several associates, abused and threatened the victim and her brother, and assaulted them with fists, bamboo sticks, a belt and stones.

The victim and her brother sustained injuries, described as simple in nature in relation to the brother.

Following the victim’s written complaint, the offences were registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

The applicant had been in custody since 17 June 2026 and disclosed five criminal antecedents, four of which remained pending.

The prosecution opposed bail on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS supporting the prosecution case, and the applicant’s antecedents.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of sexual misconduct, assault and criminal intimidation made against him?

Whether the filing of the charge-sheet, the simple nature of the injuries, the bail granted to a co-accused, and the applicant’s period of custody warranted the grant of bail despite the victim’s supporting statement and the applicant’s criminal antecedents?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

In exercising bail discretion, the Court considered the nature and seriousness of the allegations, the supporting statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the injuries allegedly sustained, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The Court also considered the procedural circumstance that investigation had concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed, but treated that factor as insufficient, by itself, to justify bail in view of the allegations and antecedents.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the allegations against the applicant involved intercepting the victim in a public place, forcibly holding her hand, subjecting her to unwanted physical contact, and thereafter participating with associates in assaulting and threatening the victim and her brother.

Although the injuries were simple, the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS supported the prosecution version.

The Court acknowledged that the charge-sheet had been filed, that the applicant had remained in custody since 17 June 2026, and that certain co-accused had been released; however, it gave greater weight at this stage to the nature of the allegations, the victim’s supporting statement, and the applicant’s five criminal antecedents, which included four pending cases.

On that assessment, the Court held that the applicant did not deserve bail at that stage.

The rejection was based principally on the seriousness of the alleged sexual misconduct, assault and threats, the victim’s supporting statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, and the applicant’s criminal antecedents.

The trial court was permitted to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously, and a certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to it for information and compliance.