Yadunandan Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:27516

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1414 of 2026

¶6

1 - Yadunandan Rajput S/o Rohit Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Village And Post Khaira (Nandghat), Police Station And Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Onkar Yadav S/o Rambhagas Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Village And Post Khaira (Nandghat), Police Station And Tahsil Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Nandghat, Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellants : Mr. Gaurav Singhal Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

03/07/2026

¶16

This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellants as they are arrested in connection with Crime No. 14/2026 registered at police station Nandghat, District Bemetara (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 117(2), 309(4), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(/k) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.04 11:01:31 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

As per the case of the prosecution, on 14.01.2026, Gulshan Kumar of Temri Bhatti informed the complainant Rupau Ghritlahre by phone that his son Ashish Ghritlahre was being assaulted by Dev Rajput and his associates. Rupau immediately reached Temri and found his son with grievous injuries on his leg, head, and other body parts. He took Ashish to Baitalpur Hospital, from where he was referred to Tilda and then admitted to a hospital in Raipur. Ashish disclosed to his father that Dev Rajput and his associates abused him with obscene and filthy language, threatened to kill him, assaulted him with a stick causing injuries, and sprayed some substance into his eyes. Based on the oral complaint lodged by Rupau Ghritlahre at Police Station Nandghat on 15.01.2026, Crime No. 14/2026 was registered against the accused and his associates under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, upon finding a fracture in the injured’s leg, Sections 117(2) and 309(4) BNS and Section 3(1)(ध) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added.

¶20

By order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 14/2026, the bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected against which the appellants have filed this appeal.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim has sustained a grievous injury to his leg, not to the vital part. Nothing has been seized from the appellants. Charge sheet has been filed, the appellants are in jail since 04.03.2026, there is a total of 25 listed witnesses in the matter, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it

¶22

3

¶23

is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellants. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellants may not be granted bail.

¶25

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶26

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that nothing has been seized from the present appellants and no grievous injury on vital part, the appellants are in jail since 04.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellants on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is setaside.

¶28

It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge

¶31

H.L. Sahu

Yadunandan Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadunandan Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Sen Vs Pukhraj Bhatt @ Lakki

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vatan Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Karishma Tandiya Vs Guddu Veen

Satyanarayan Kolta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Markush Kachchhap Vs State of Chhattisgarh