Dismissed¶8

Mukesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2026CRA/1234/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; rape/sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage, refusal to marry; appeal under S.14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989; offences under Ss.296, 64(2)(m), 69 BNS and S.3(2)(v)(a) SC/ST Act; Crime No.117/2026, P.S. Mahasamund; victim and father raised objection via virtual mode from DLSA Mahasamund; nature and gravity of offence; custody since 18.03.2026; charge-sheet filed; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; CRA No. 1234 of 2026; decided 03/07/2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the accused/appellant and rejected the bail application. ¶8

Mukesh Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:27443

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1234 of 2026

¶6

Mukesh Patel S/o Ramadhar Patel Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Boida Thana Hardibazar District Korba (C.G.)

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶10

--- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL

¶12

Digitally signed VASANT by VASANTKUMARDate: KUMAR 2026.07.03 16:08:57 +0530

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

03/07/2026

¶15

This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned order dated 30.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, under Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mahasamund (CG) in Crime No.117/2026, whereby appellant's application for grant of bail is rejected.

¶16

Appellant is in jail since 18.03.2026 in connection with Crime No.117/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, District

¶17

¶18

Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 64(2) (m), 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

As per case of prosecution, on 08.03.2026, the prosecutrix has lodged the written complaint before the concerned police station against the appellant stating that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant has committed sexual intercourse with her from the period 06.11.2023 to 03.02.2026 and thereafter the appellant has refused to marry with her. On the basis of said complaint, case was registered against the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and appellant has committed the said offence and he was arrested on 18.03.2026.

¶20

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further submits that the appellant and the victim both were working in a financial company and they were in relationship for last 03 years and the victim is a consenting party. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since 18.03.2026, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail.

¶21

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant was regularly committing the said offence, therefore, the appellant may not be released on bail.

¶22

Pursuant to order dated 14.05.2026, victim and her father appeared before

¶23

¶24

this Court through virtual mode from the DLSA Mahasamund. On being

¶25

asked, they raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for parties.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, perused the material available on record and further looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused/appellant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.

¶28

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

¶29

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶30

Vasant

Mukesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohar Lal Poya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sheikh Rahman Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hadish Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Tamboli Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Swapnil Mondal Vs State of Chhattisgarh