Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed bySOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2026.04.06 17:02:52 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:15561

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 784 of 2026

¶6

1 - Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Kamta Prasad Sahu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Chatauna Bilaspur, P.S. Chakarbhata, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address Rice Mill Chowk, Bhittikala, P.S. Manipur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anil Pillai, Adv. with Mr. Gendesh Dadsena, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board

¶12

06/04/2026

¶13

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 appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 108/2025 registered at police station Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶14

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.05.2025, the complainant/prosecutrix filed a written complaint at Police

¶15

2

¶16

Station Lakhanpur stating that about 7 years ago, she was married to Topno, but due to a lack of matrimonial harmony, she and her husband obtained a divorce, and she has been living in her maternal home. The prosecutrix earns her livelihood by selling vegetables and, for this purpose, regularly travels on an autorickshaw driven by the accused/appellant as a taxi driver, a practice she has followed for about 13/14 years. Over time, the prosecutrix and the accused developed a close relationship. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant, under the pretext of marriage, subjected her to sexual intercourse, knowing that she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community. Based on the above, an offence was registered against the appellant.

¶17

By order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 108/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the prosecutrix is a married woman aged about 30 years and had a love affair with the appellant prior to her marriage, which resumed after her divorce, as admitted by the prosecutrix herself. Both the applicant and the prosecutrix are adults who entered into a consensual physical relationship; therefore, prima facie, no offence has been made out against the appellant. He lastly submits that the appellant has been in jail since 04.06.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.

¶19

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 Appellant, out of total 13 witnesses only 03 have been examined till date, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail.

¶20

3

¶21

Despite service of notice, the prosecutrix is not appeared before this Court.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is a major, aged about 30 years, and had a love affair with the appellant prior to her marriage, which resumed after her divorce from her husband, and on perusal of her court statement and also taking into account that the appellant has been in jail since 04.06.2025, out of total 13 witnesses only 03 have been examined till date, and the trial likely to take some time to be finalized, without commenting on the merits of the case this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge

¶27

Sourabh P.

Yogesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar Sahu 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

Ajay Kumar Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishankar Pav @ Bablu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Anand Kumar Sahay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh