Allowed

Rajkumar Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2026MCRC/7416/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to three applicants arrested in connection with an FIR alleging assault, forced administration of abortion pills, and criminal intimidation of a pregnant woman. The court noted the charge-sheet had been filed, the applicants had been in jail since June 29, 2026, the principal allegation of sexual assault was against a co-accused, and trial conclusion would take time. Bail was allowed on personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with one surety, subject to conditions including undertaking not to seek adjournments, regular court attendance, and personal presence at key trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to all three applicants on personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with one surety in the like sum, subject to specified conditions.

Rajkumar Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010308972026

2026:CGHC:41009

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 7416 of 2026

¶7

1 - Rajkumar Yadav S/o Basant Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o VillageGopalpur, P.S. Rajpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Savita @ Sarita Yadav W/o Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Gopalpur, P.S. Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Ganeshwar Yadav S/o Rajkumar Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o VillageGopalpur, P.S. Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O , Police Statiion- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Applicants : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

21.09.2026

¶17

1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 70/2026, registered at Police Station Shankargarh District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69, 89, 115(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of

¶18

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.22 11:45:49 +0530

¶19

¶20

BNS.

¶21

2. As per the prosecution story, between 15.08.2025 and 20.03.2026, coaccused Kamil Yadav introduced himself to the victim through Instagram, promised to marry her and forcibly established physical relations with her. He thereafter took her to his house, where she became pregnant. Subsequently, co-accused Kamil Yadav and the present applicants assaulted the victim, stating that they would neither marry her nor keep the child. Applicant No.2, Savita, forcibly administered abortion pills to the victim. On 23.03.2026, co-accused Kamil Yadav and the present applicants again assaulted the victim and threw her out of the house. When the victim went to the police station to lodge a report, applicant No.1, Rajkumar, asked her to give him a few days and assured her that the marriage would thereafter be arranged. However, the marriage was not arranged, and he insisted the victim to accept an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Co-accused Kamil Yadav also threatened the victim and forced to accept the money or to face dire consequences. The medical documents of the victim have also been produced in the case, which indicate that she was pregnant and subsequently underwent medical termination of pregnancy. Consequently, the FIR was lodged against the applicants by the victim, pursuant to which the offences, as stated above, were registered.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the main accused in the present case is co-accused Kamil Yadav. He would further submit that, although there are allegations against the present applicants that they assaulted the victim and applicant No.2, Savita, forcibly administered abortion pills to her, the principal allegation with regard to

¶23

¶24

establishing physical relations with the victim and the subsequent pregnancy is against co-accused Kamil Yadav. The applicants are in jail since 29.06.2026 and charge-sheet has been filed. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicants.

¶25

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that there are specific and serious allegations against the present applicants. He would further submit that the applicants actively participated in assaulting the victim and that applicant No.2, Savita, forcibly administered abortion pills to the victim. He would also submit that the medical documents available on record corroborate the fact that the victim was pregnant and subsequently underwent medical termination of pregnancy. He therefore prays for rejection of the bail application.

¶26

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

¶27

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicants are in jail since 29.06.2026, the allegation of sexual assault is against co-accused Kamil Yadav, and without commenting on the merits of the case, further considering that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicants. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶28

7. Let the applicants be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned, subject to the following

¶29

¶30

conditions:-

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses 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.

¶34

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Jyoti

Rajkumar Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Yadav v. the 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