Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3379 of 2025 Sahil Sonwani S/o Bharat Bhushan Sonwani Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No.-6, Village - Teakri 2, Post - Girod, Thana - Vidhansabha, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Vidhansabha, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 130/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhansabha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written complaint at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur, on 18.03.2025, wherein it was alleged that the present applicant has RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 been charged under Section 64(2)(M) of the B.N.S. The complainant stated that she is a resident of Village Chatoud, Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur, and has been married for the past ten years. Her husband is engaged in agriculture, and the couple has two children. It is further stated that on 25.02.2025, her husband’s aunt’s son, Sahil Sonvani, along with 10–15 other persons, visited their house as guests to celebrate a festival. On the night of the festival, i.e., 26.02.2025, her husband went to the temple and did not return home. The victim was sleeping in the living room along with the other guests when, at around 1:00 AM, Sahil Sonvani allegedly woke her up and, on the pretext of speaking with her, took her to his room where he forcibly committed rape. He also threatened her, stating that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would hang himself and commit suicide in her house. Out of fear and concern for her family’s honour, the victim did not disclose the incident to anyone. On 28.02.2025, Sahil left their house, but continued to visit frequently until 14.03.2025. On the day following the Holi festival, he again stayed at her residence. That night, while her husband was asleep in the living room, Sahil entered her room, assuming she was alone, and stayed there. On 15.03.2025, at around 4:00 AM, Sahil again entered her room, threatened to hang her if she raised an alarm, and committed rape. Due to fear and shame, the victim remained silent. It was only on 17.03.2025 that she informed her mother-in-law about the incidents. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He 3 further submits that the applicant/accused and the victim were in a consensual relationship for the past three years and they are distant relatives. He further submits that the victim is approximately 28 years of age, a married woman, and the mother of two children, whereas the applicant/accused is about 17 years of age and was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. It is further contended that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature, and the complaint has been lodged under pressure from the victim’s family. He further submits that there is a significant delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident occurred on 26.02.2025, but the complaint was filed only on 18.03.2025, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. He also submits that the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report and the medical examination (MLC) does not support the case of the prosecution, and as per the doctor’s opinion, no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the victim and no definite opinion of forceful sexual intercourse has been given. He further submits that the present applicant has no previous criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 18.03.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. She further submits that the applicant, who is a relative and house guest, forcibly raped her at night and threatened to commit suicide if she revealed the incident, out of fear and shame, the victim did not 4 report the matter. She further submits that the applicant continued visiting her house frequently and on 15.03.2025, allegedly raped her again under similar threats, thereafter the victim informed her mother-in-law about the incidents on 17.03.2025, and the FIR was lodged on 18.03.2025, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 18.03.2025, the fact that the applicant/accused and the victim were in a consensual relationship for the past three years and they are distant relatives and the victim is approximately 28 years of age, a married woman, and having two children, whereas the applicant/accused is about 17 years of age and was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, further the fact that there is a significant delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident occurred on 26.02.2025, but the complaint was filed only on 18.03.2025, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay, further considering the fact that the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report and the medical examination (MLC) does not support the case of the prosecution, and as per the doctor’s opinion, no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the victim and no definite opinion of forceful sexual intercourse has been given, further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to 5 be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant- Sahil Sonwani, involved in Crime No. 130/2025 registered at Police Station- Vidhansabha, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(M) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the 6 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan