Dismissed¶25

Lalan Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2026CRA/236/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act appeal dismissed; gang rape Sections 376(2)(g), 450 IPC, Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act; Crime No.144/1998 PS AZAK Ambikapur; Special Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur rejection upheld 16.02.2026; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; appellant absconding 27 years; co-accused Lalji Yadav convicted; victim no-objection via DLSA virtual mode; nature and gravity of offence weighed against aged accused.

What did the court decide?

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, this court finds no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the anticipatory bail application. ¶24

Lalan Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to appellant Lalan Jaiswal in connection with Crime No.144/1998 (Sections 376(2)(g) and 450 IPC; Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act), i.e., whether the trial court's rejection of his anticipatory bail application was erroneous.

¶19

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal stands dismissed; anticipatory bail is therefore withheld and the appellant remains liable to arrest.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 236 of 2026 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur) — Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. — Order dated 16.02.2026. Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Lalan Jaiswal challenging the order dated 12.12.2025 of the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur rejecting his anticipatory bail application in Crime No.144/1998, P.S. AZAK Ambikapur (Sections 376(2)(g), 450 IPC; Section 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act), arising from an alleged gang rape of a Scheduled Tribe prosecutrix on 03.09.1998 with co-accused Lalji Yadav (trial against whom concluded on 30.10.2020). The victim and her brother appeared through virtual mode from DLSA and expressed no objection to granting bail; counsel cited the appellant's claimed continuous village presence, tenure as elected Panch (2010-2015), Rojnamacha entry of 17.07.1998, participation in a civil suit (2008-2012) and age-related ailments; the State opposed citing discrepancy in the father's name, positive FSL report, absconding for about 27 years, and the co-accused's conviction. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence and the material on record, the court found no error or illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, directing the Office to send a certified copy to the concerned trial Court.

¶1

¶2

Digitally BHOLA signed byBHOLANATH NATH KHATAI KHATAI Date:2026.02.17 16:16:31 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:8338

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 236 of 2026

¶7

Lalan Jaiswal S/o Sadhucharan Jaiswal Aged About 75 Years Residence Of Village - Chandi P.S. Chalgali District Sarguja Now District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Age Wrongly Mentioned As 30 Years In Order Impugned)

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. AZAK Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board

¶14

16.02.2026

¶15

1. The victim along with her brother appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and expressed no-objection in granting anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶16

2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant

¶17

¶18

against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) whereby the anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant in respect of Crime No.144/1998 registered at Police Station AZAK Ambikapur for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) (g), 450 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(12) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected.

¶19

3. As per the prosecution case, on 03.09.1998 at about 6 p.m., the appellant along with co-accused Lalji Yadav entered into the house of prosecutrix who is a member of Scheduled Tribe and committed gang rape with her. The appellant has been absconding since the date of incident and charge sheet was filed against co-accused Lalji Yadav. The trial against coaccused Lalji Yadav concluded on 30.10.2020. The anticipatory bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2025. Now, the appellant has filed this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with the said offence.

¶20

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the police filed the Challan declaring the appellant an absconder, whereas the appellant remained present in his village throughout the period serving as the elected Panch of Gram Panchayat Belsar from 2010 to 2015. His name was also recorded in the Rojnamacha dated 17.07.1998. Between 2008 and 2012, the appellant was participating in a pending civil suit. Now, the appellant is 74–75 years old and suffers from multiple age-related infirmities, including diabetes, hypertension, and heart and kidney complications. Therefore, considering all these facts, anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant.

¶21

¶22

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that in all the documents submitted by the appellant, his father’s name is mentioned as Narbdeshwar, whereas in the original case, his father's name is mentioned as Sadhucharan. The FSL report is positive, the appellant is the main accused and he has been absconding for about 27 years. Co-accused Lalji has been convicted by the trial Court. Considering all these facts and the nature of offence, the appellant is not eligible for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the appeal should be dismissed.

¶23

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

¶25

8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed .

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶29

Khatai

Lalan Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Jaiswal 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

Devnandan Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Aarti Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aman Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sudha Singh Vs Ankit Singh

Rajkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh