Upholding ‘woman’s dignity within home’, Chhattisgarh High Court denies bail to accused in 2025 sexual assault case

Background

• The prosecution’s case stems from a police complaint pertaining to incidents that allegedly occurred in October 2025.
• According to the survivor, the petitioner, whom she had known for two years, approached her house in an inebriated state on October 13, 2025, and abused her.
• Two days later, while the survivor’s husband was away, the petitioner allegedly entered her house, expressed his attraction to her, and forcibly caught her hand.
• When the survivor raised an alarm, the accused reportedly closed her mouth and threatened to kill both her and her husband if she disclosed the incident.
• He is also alleged to have used obscene and filthy language and damaged the gate’s latch before leaving.

Arguments of parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Chitendra Singh, argued that his client had been falsely implicated.
• He further contended that a consensual relationship existed between the petitioner and the complainant, citing WhatsApp chats and photographs as evidence.
• He stated that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about three months, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s story.
• “The complainant and her husband continuously raised illegal monetary demands from the applicant, pursuant to which certain amounts were paid online. The present FIR is a consequence of the petitioner’s refusal to meet such unlawful demands,” he submitted.
• Representing the state, advocate Ritika Verma argued that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature.
• She further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been properly explained due to fear and shame, and witnesses have supported the prosecution’s case.
• Therefore, considering the gravity and sexual nature of the allegations, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

‘Fear, shame, and intimidation’

• It appears the petitioner allegedly criminally trespassed into the survivor’s house when her husband was not present and used obscene and abusive language, the court noted.
• He committed acts amounting to sexual assault by catching hold of her with sexual intent, extended threats to kill her and her husband, and caused damage to the property.
• The delay in lodging the FIR has been prima facie explained by the victim due to fear, shame, and intimidation.
• In view of the seriousness of the accusations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, it is not a fit case to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.