Dismissed

Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/8165/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court rejected the applicant's third plea for regular bail, holding that completion of investigation, medical ailments, and prior acquittals did not constitute a material change in circumstances given pending criminal cases and the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The third bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.

Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Medical Negligence | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010328032026

2026:CGHC:40229

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 8165 of 2026

¶7

Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav S/o Shatruhan Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ekta Colony, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

15/09/2026

¶15

1. This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNSS) for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 332/2026, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 74, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, BNS).

¶16

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.03.2026, the complainant lodged a written report alleging that on 02.03.2026 at about 8:15 PM, while she was travelling in an e-rickshaw along with her mother, daughter, and friend, the present applicant along with a co-

¶17

¶18

accused arrived on a scooter, wrongfully intercepted her, used abusive language, threatened her, and outraged her modesty. On the basis of said complaint, the aforementioned crime was registered against the applicant.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application (MCRC No. 4525/2026) was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2026 primarily due to the pending investigation and criminal antecedents, and the second bail application was dismissed on 03.08.2026 solely on the technical ground of non-filing of the trial court's order sheets. There is a material change in circumstances the charge-sheet has now been filed on 20.05.2026, and the complete order sheets of the trial court have been brought on record. He would further submit that out of 5 criminal antecedents attributed to the applicant, he has already been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 5444/2015 (acquitted on 23.07.2024) and Criminal Case No. 12493/2019 (acquitted on 28.03.2025). He would contend that the applicant suffers from a severe neurological ailment (Cerebral Venous Thrombosis with prior stroke/hemiparesis), and his mother is critically ill with advanced breast cancer, requiring care as the father has already expired. He would argue that co-accused Kanhaiya Dewangan has already been extended the benefit of bail after the filing of the charge-sheet; therefore, on the grounds of parity, completed investigation, and pre-trial detention since 22.03.2026, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by counsel for the applicant and submit that the applicant is named in the incident, having actively participated in sexually harassing and intimidating a woman in a public transit vehicle. He would further submit that even after factoring in the two acquittals, the applicant has four other criminal cases pending against him, indicating that he is a habitual offender. He would also submit that the

¶21

¶22

nature and gravity of the offence under Section 74 of the BNS do not warrant discretionary relief merely because the investigation is complete; thus, the bail application may be rejected.

¶23

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the materials placed on record.

¶24

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, specific allegations against the applicant along with other coaccused that on a scooter they intercepted the complainant while she was travelling in an e-rickshaw with her mother, friend, and minor daughter, and subjected her to unwelcome physical contact/sexual harassment, abuse, and criminal intimidation, and further considering that though the applicant has earned acquittal in Criminal Case No. 5444/2015 and Criminal Case No. 12493/2019, but four other criminal cases are still pending against him, which show that he is a habitual offender, this Court is of the opinion that mere filing of the chargesheet, submission of the trial court order-sheets, or the medical ailments do not constitute a material change in circumstances of the case; nor can parity be claimed with co-accused Kanhaiya Dewangan. Consequently, no good ground is made out to entertain this repeat application, and the third bail application filed on behalf of applicant is hereby rejected .

¶25

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Nadim

Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav 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