Facts
On October 11, 2025, the victim, while alone at her rented accommodation in Sagarpali, reported that the two accused/applicants, Shiva Banjara and Ajay Yadav, forcibly entered her house, closed the door, used obscene language, and then committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one by one around 3:00 P.M.
Source reference: p.2During the incident, the victim's husband arrived, knocked on the door, and upon receiving no response, pushed it open and entered.
Source reference: p.2The applicants allegedly abused and assaulted him, and also assaulted the victim when she intervened.
Source reference: p.2A report was lodged, leading to Crime No. 290/2025 being registered at Police Station Saraipali for offences punishable under Sections 70(1), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS.
Source reference: p.2The applicants have been in custody since October 12, 2025.
Source reference: p.3A charge-sheet has been filed.
Source reference: p.2, p.4Issues
Whether the applicants, Shiva Banjara and Ajay Yadav, should be granted regular bail in connection with Crime No. 290/2025.
Source reference: p.1Law Applied
The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of regular bail.
Source reference: p.1The decision also implicitly considered the principles for granting or rejecting bail, including the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and material available in the case diary.
Source reference: p.3 p.6The court also noted that certain alleged facts, such as the victim's statement and the absence of a doctor's opinion for sexual assault in the MLC, were relevant.
Source reference: p.3, p.4Reasoning
The court considered the applicants' submission that they were falsely implicated, that the allegations were not corroborated by the medical report, specifically stating that the MLC showed no opinion of sexual assault, and that no MLC of the husband was conducted despite alleged assault.
Source reference: p.3They also argued that the applicants were in jail since October 12, 2025, and the trial would take time.
Source reference: p.3However, the State Counsel opposed bail, emphasizing that the victim's statement clearly alleged trespass, use of obscene language, and forcible sexual intercourse.
Source reference: p.4The State also highlighted the allegations of assault on both the victim and her husband when he intervened.
Source reference: p.4The court noted the victim's categorical statement regarding the applicants' actions of trespassing, using obscene language, and forcibly committing sexual intercourse.
Source reference: p.4, p.6The court further considered the allegations of assault on the husband and the victim upon intervention.
Source reference: p.6Despite the lack of medical corroboration for sexual assault in the MLC, the court deemed the victim's statement and the other alleged events as significant factors.
Source reference: p.4, p.6Based on these factors, the court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting regular bail.
Source reference: p.6Holding
The court held that it was not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on regular bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of applicants - Shiva Banjara and Ajay Yadav - involved in Crime No. 290/2025, registered at Police Station Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, was rejected.
Source reference: p.7The trial Court was directed to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
SHIVA BANJARAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in