Satya Om Prakash Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed byRAVI RAVISHANKAR SHANKARMANDAVI MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.03 10:46:03 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:4668

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 318 of 2026

¶7

1 - Satya Om Prakash Kashyap S/o Sundar Lal Kashyap Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Kharouda, Ward No. 12, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa C.G.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir Champa C.G.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

28/01/2026

¶16

1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 22/2025 registered at Police Station – Shivrinarayan, District –janjgir Champa (C.G.) for

¶17

2

¶18

the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 201of IPC, Sections 4, 6 of of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶19

2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.01.2025 at 08:45 a.m., the complainant/victim lodged a report before the Police Station Shivrinarayan that, in the year 2019 at the time of Parshad Election, the applicant on pretext of marriage committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim and subsequently committed sexual intercourse with the complainant on multiple occasion by blackmailing to viral her pictures and also threatened to throw acid on her, if the incident is disclosed to anyone. Based on complaint of the victim, the present applicant was arrested on 22.01.2025 and the aforesaid offence was registered against him.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim has registered the FIR on 22.01.2025 with regard to the incident that took place in the year 2019, i.e. with a delay of more than 5 years. Further, she is a major lady and has continuously been in contact with the appellant for some of her demand, which the appellant could not fulfill, therefore, she registered the said FIR. The applicant has no criminal antecedents related with molestation and has been in jail since 22.01.2025, there is no likelihood of his case being decided

¶21

3

¶22

in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶23

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that the date of birth of victim is 10.04.2004 (as per Admission & Discharge register) i.e. she is minor on the date of incident and the appellant is having 13 criminal antecedents. Further, in the instant case, out of total 24 witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date and several important witnesses remain to be examined, therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶24

5. In compliance of service of notice, the victim along with her mother present in person before this Court and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶25

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶26

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, further considering the fact that out of 24 witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date, and and some important witnesses are still remaining for examination, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected .

¶28

4

¶29

9. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 22.01.2025, about 01 year and 06 days. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 05 months.

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶32

Ravi Mandavi

Satya Om Prakash Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Om Prakash Kashyap 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

Yash Balani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kt (Juvenile in Conflict With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakashchand Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dileep Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Boman Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shahim Vs State of Chhattisgarh