Niyazuddin @ Rangu Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for setting aside the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), whereby his prayer for grant of bail has been rejected, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 76/2025, registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The earlier bail application preferred by the appellant, bearing CRA No. 1720/2025, has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025. Hence, this bail application.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the night of 30.05.2025, an oral dispute arose between the victim and her husband over preparation of egg curry, following which the husband of the victim left the house and went to sleep at his mother's house, situated nearby. Thereafter, the victim had dinner and went to sleep. At about 11:45 p.m., the accused/appellant, who is a resident of the same village, forcibly entered the house of the victim, gagged her mouth and attempted to establish physical relations with her and committed rape upon her. Upon the victim raising an alarm for help, her family members reached the spot, caught hold of the appellant and threw him out of the house. Thereafter, the husband of the victim also reached the spot, whereupon the entire incident was narrated to him. Subsequently, on the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, an FIR was registered against the appellant and after investigation, he was arrested.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the earlier bail application was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits, however, there has been a subsequent change in circumstances, as the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court. Referring to her cross-examination, particularly paragraph 11, learned counsel submits that the victim admitted that there is only one door for ingress and egress to her house and that the house is surrounded from all four sides. She further admitted that, at the time of the incident, the rear side of the house was not surrounded and that if the front door of her house was closed by putting a latch, no one could enter. She denied the suggestion that the accused had been called by her, but admitted that unless someone informed the accused that the door of her house was open, he would not have known about the same. Learned counsel further submits that, in paragraph 14 of her cross-examination, the victim admitted that her in-laws had not quarrelled with her on the date of the incident, but had scolded her on the following morning and she denied the suggestion that her in-laws had assaulted her. He further submits that the victim is a married woman, aged about 30 years and was a consenting party. He would further submit that the medical report does not support the prosecution case and that the offence punishable under Section 64 of the BNS is not made out against the appellant. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, in her examination-in-chief, the victim has duly supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that, merely because the victim is a major and married woman, the allegations against the appellant cannot be brushed aside, particularly when, as per the prosecution case and the evidence recorded before the learned trial Court, the appellant forcibly entered into her house and committed the alleged offence. He further submits that the earlier bail application of the appellant, bearing CRA No. 1720/2025, has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 and there is no subsequent change in circumstance warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the material available against the appellant, he submits that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and other material available on record.

From perusal of the statement of the victim recorded before the learned trial Court, it transpires that, in paragraph 2 of her deposition, she has categorically stated that on the date of incident, at about 12:00 midnight, the appellant forcibly entered her house and sexually assaulted her against her will. She further deposed that, thereafter, her in-laws reached the spot and the appellant was thrown out of the room. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged and the victim was medically examined. Thus, from the statement of the victim, prima facie, the allegation of forcible sexual assault against the appellant is supported. At the stage of consideration of bail, the medical evidence cannot be appreciated or examined in detail.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the appellant, the statement of the victim recorded before the learned trial Court and further considering the fact that the earlier bail application of the appellant, bearing CRA No. 1720/2025, has already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 and there is no substantial change in circumstance thereafter, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the bail application of the appellant namely -Niyazuddin @ Rangu Khan, involved in Crime No. 76/2025, registered at Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is rejected.

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.