Allowed

Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026CRA/1358/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal for bail, setting aside the lower court's refusal. Citing Supreme Court precedent on the right to a speedy trial, the court ordered release on bail while expediting the trial.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed bySIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.11 17:57:01 +0530

CGHC010218042026

2026:CGHC:39869

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 1358 of 2026

¶8

Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar S/o Late Shri Koshiram Khairwar Aged About 49 Years R/o Barbaspur, Police Station- Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11.09.2026

¶17

The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (FTSC POCSO) for the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja, Ambikapur and for grant of bail to the appellant who has been arrested

¶18

¶19

in connection with Crime No. 315/2022, registered at Police StationAmbikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294 506, 109, 115, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short “Act of 1989”).

¶20

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.10.2021, the appellant and the prosecutrix proceeded to a place to recover hoard (treasure), as the appellant is an occultist ( tantrik ) possessing supernatural powers. It is further alleged that on the said date, the appellant herein sexually assaulted the prosecutrix. An FIR was lodged against the appellant on 13.04.2022 for the offence stated above.

¶21

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate would contend that another co-accused Noor Jahan has already enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. He would contend that the offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been added on the ground that the appellant committed offence knowing the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to the SC/ST category. He would further contend that though the appellant was arrested on 14.06.2022, but till now only one witness has been examined and evidence of victim is going on.

¶22

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni would contend that Crime No. 278 of 2022 was also registered against the appellant herein, and in said case, he has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2026 vide order dated 07.08.2026. He

¶23

¶24

would pray to allow this appeal.

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Sumit Singh would argue that the prosecutrix was abducted by the appellant herein on the pretext of recovering hoard (treasure) by practicing witchcraft, and subsequently, she was sexually assaulted. He would submit that the prosecutrix has supported the nature of prosecution and her evidence is still in progress. He would submit that as there are serious allegations against the appellant, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶27

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahil Manoj Machare Versus State of Maharashtra reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 held that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relevant paragraphs 5 to 7 read as under :-

¶28

“5. In such circumstances, referred to above, are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.

¶29

6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider appropriately. the plea for bail.

¶30

¶31

7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined. ”

¶32

In the present case, FIR was registered on 13.04.2022 and appellant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2022. Perusal of the documents and case diary would reveal that evidence of prosecutrix is in progress. Further, the appellant has already been enlarged on bail in CRA No. 1360 of 2026, wherein similar allegations were made.

¶33

Having considered the facts discussed-above, stage of trial, period of detention, law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahil Manoj Machare (supra), I am inclined to allow instant appeal. The order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the Additional Session Judge (FTSC POCSO) for the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Sarguja, Ambikapur in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No. 39/2022 is hereby set-aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the Appellant – Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The appellant 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.

¶36

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial

¶37

¶38

court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶39

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the appellant 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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶40

(iv) The appellant 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 appellant is deliberate or without sufficient 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.

¶41

However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶44

$iddhant

Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Khairwar @ Dayaram Khairwar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases