Allowed

Yogendra Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/6377/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to an applicant arrested for alleged kidnapping, rape, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor girl under the BNS and POCSO Act. The court considered that the victim and her mother had been examined and did not support the prosecution case, the applicant had been in custody since April 2026, and the trial would likely take time. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not to influence witnesses, (ii) not to prejudice the trial, and (iii) to appear before the trial court on every date.

Yogendra Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010266812026

2026:CGHC:41047

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 6377 of 2026

¶7

Yogendra Vaishnav S/o Lakeshwar Vaishnav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Baniyadih Police Station Sipat, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Akaltara, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicant	:	Mr. Ankur Seth, Advocate
For Non-applicant	:	Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

21.09.2026

¶15

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.87/2026, registered at Police Station- Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 64(2) (M), 65 (1), 87 of BNS and 4, 6 of POCSO Act.

¶16

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused, knowing the victim to be a minor girl below 16 years of age, enticed and abducted her between 08.02.2026 and 09.02.2026 on pretext of marriage. It is alleged that thereafter, on 12.02.2026 and 15.02.2026, he committed rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the

¶17

¶18

victim. On a report being lodged to the above effect, the FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences and the applicant was arrested.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that though the applicant has two criminal antecedents registered in the years 2023 and 2024, the applicant has been in jail since 03.04.2026. He would also submit that the victim as well as her mother have already been examined before the trial Court and both have not supported the prosecution case, with the victim even denying the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor. He would contend that conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time; thus, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that as per the date of birth of the victim, she was below 15 years of age at the time of the incident. He would further submit that there are serious allegations levelled against the applicant; hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶21

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

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, and the fact that the victim and her mother have already been examined before the trial Court and have not supported the prosecution case, even denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor; further considering that the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2026 and there are two criminal antecedents of the applicant, one pertains to the Excise Act and the other to the IPC, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

¶24

¶25

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,

¶26

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶27

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶28

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey )

¶31

Judge

¶32

Nadim

Yogendra Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Vaishnav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases