Chhattisgarh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two Men Accused Of Taking Woman To Terrace At Night To Outrage Her Modesty

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged offences.

The court held

The Court answered the application for anticipatory bail in the negative.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023.

01Facts

The applicants sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 361/2026, registered for offences under Sections 74, 296, 115(2), 351(3), 191(2) and 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1

The complainant alleged that, during the intervening night of 20–21 August 2026, a group entered her house, attempted to take her to the terrace, and assaulted her and her brothers; she attributed involvement to the applicants and others.

¶ 2

The applicants denied the allegations, claimed false implication arising from a dispute over the sale of a trailer, relied on injuries allegedly sustained by Applicant No. 2, and pointed to a five-day delay in lodging the report and the absence of criminal antecedents.

¶ 3

The State opposed bail, referring to the alleged attempted assault on the complainant and injuries sustained by her and her brothers.

¶ 4

The High Court considered the parties’ submissions and the documents filed with the application.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged offences.

¶ 1, 6

ii.2. Whether the circumstances relied on by the applicants—including the alleged trailer-sale dispute, Applicant No. 2’s injury, delay in reporting, and absence of antecedents—warranted anticipatory bail despite the allegations and injuries described by the prosecution.

¶ 3–6

03Law Applied

Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, provides the procedural basis for an application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶ 1

The Court assessed the application in light of the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the parties’ submissions, the nature of the allegations, and the time at which the alleged incident occurred.

¶ 6

The order cites no precedent or further legal test governing the exercise of this discretion.

¶ 1–7

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 74 Section 296 Section 115 Section 351 Section 191 Section 331

04Reasoning

The Court considered the applicants’ grounds for bail alongside the prosecution’s account of a nighttime entry into the complainant’s house, the alleged attempt to take her to another room, and the injuries reportedly sustained by the complainant and her brothers.

¶ 2–4

Having regard to the overall circumstances, the nature of the allegations and the timing of the incident, the Court concluded that the case was not fit for anticipatory bail; it did not separately analyse the applicants’ individual grounds in its reasons.

¶ 6