Allowed

Yashwant Lodhi Alias Appu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7259/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first bail application under Section 483 BNSS for an applicant arrested under Section 308(5) BNS for extortion of gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.75,000 from a minor through threats. The applicant had been in custody since 16.06.2026, charge-sheet was filed, and trial had not commenced. Considering the period of detention, the fact that one prior case ended in acquittal and another in conviction with fine only, and anticipated trial delay, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety and strict conditions to ensure presence and prevent misuse.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions ensuring presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

Yashwant Lodhi Alias Appu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Outcome

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions ensuring presence and preventing misuse of liberty.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration since 16.06.2026, filing of charge-sheet, criminal antecedents, and likely delay in conclusion of trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The applicant, Yashwant Lodhi alias Appu, was arrested in Crime No.166/2026 at PS Lawan for an offence punishable under Section 308(5) BNS (extortion). The prosecution alleged that the complainant's minor son handed over gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs.75,000 to the applicant under repeated threats. The applicant moved a first bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023. He had been in jail since 16.06.2026. The charge-sheet had been filed but no witness had been examined. The applicant had two criminal antecedents from 2016 under the IPC — one resulting in acquittal, the other in conviction with fine. The State opposed bail citing serious allegations of extortion. The court, without commenting on merits, considered the duration of incarceration, filing of charge-sheet, disposal of prior cases, and likely delay in trial, and held the applicant entitled to bail. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions: (i) an undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates when witnesses are present, failing which the trial court may treat it as abuse of bail; (ii) presence on every hearing date personally or through counsel, with unexplained absence attracting proceedings under Section 269 BNS; (iii) if proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear, proceedings under Section 209 BNS shall be initiated; (iv) personal presence on dates for opening of case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, with deliberate absence treated as abuse of bail.

¶1

¶2

CGHC010301912026 2026:CGHC:40991

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7259 of 2026

¶6

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.22 10:58:43 +0530

¶7

Yashwant Lodhi Alias Appu S/o Parau Lodhi Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Nagar Panchayat Lawan, P.S. Lawan, Dist- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Lawan Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L.

¶11

( HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

21/09/2026

¶14

1. 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.166/2026, registered at Police Station Lawan, District. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 308 (5) of BNS.

¶15

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.05.2026, a written report was lodged by Mahendra Kumar Sahu, the complainant, to the effect that some gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs.75,000/- were missing and upon questioning, his minor son Nitesh Kumar Sahu informed that on repeated threatening, he handed over those

¶16

¶17

ornaments to the present applicant. On such report, the police registered the offence against the present applicant, as stated above. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there are two criminal antecedents against the present applicant, both were registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code in 2016. He would contend that in one case, the applicant has already been acquitted whereas in another case, he has been convicted with fine. He would further submit that charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2026 and trial may take some time for its conclusion as till now, single witness has not been examined. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶18

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application and submit that there are serious allegations of extortion against the present applicant, therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶19

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶20

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the fact that the applicant is in jail from 16.06.2026, charge-sheet has already been filed and that, with regard to two criminal antecedents, in one case, the applicant has already been acquitted and another case has been disposed of and further, conclusion of the trial may take some more time, without making any observation on merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case and the bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶21

7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal

¶22

¶23

bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶26

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶30

Anjani

Yashwant Lodhi Alias Appu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashwant Lodhi Alias Appu 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