1 2026:CGHC:7941 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 86 of 2026 Mithilesh Sahu S/o Harinath Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Khajri, P.S. Kedar, Dist Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Bhatgaon- Dist Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate (through virtual mode) For Respondent/State : Mr. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 12/02/2026 1. Pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2026, the victim appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Sarangarh and submitted that, she has no objection in granting bail to the appellant. Her submission is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant–accused, Mithilesh Sahu, S/o Harinath VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.13 10:37:42 +0530 2 Sahu, aged about 20 years, presently confined in jail, calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (FTC), Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (FTC) No.16/2025 arising out of Crime No.58/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 331(2), 115(2), 351(2), 74, 76, 79, 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(v- a) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the application preferred by the appellant has been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.04.2025, an FIR has been registered against the present appellant and other eight accused persons on the complaint made by the victim with the allegation that on 11.04.2025, she had gone to enjoy Dev Sagar Mela, and due to the night time and there was no conveyance available to return back to her village, She met with one Rajendra Kumar Lahare in the mela and she asked him to drop her at her house. When Rajendra Kumar Lahare was drinking water in her house, the accused persons entered into her house and started assaulting the victim and Rajendra Kumar Lahare, and the accused Rajendra Sahu started videography of the incident. When her father tried to stop them, they caught hold of them, and after removing their clothes, they prepared obscene videos and threatened them. The FIR was registered under Sections 191(2), 331(6), 115(2), 351(2), 74, 76, 79 and 63 of the BNS 2023. The accused persons have been arrested and the charge sheet has been filed. 3 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no active participation of the appellant in the offense in question. The victim has been examined before the learned trial court as PW-1, but has not duly supported the prosecution's case. The appellant is in jail since 15.04.2025. Final adjudication of the case will take some time. There are a number of witnesses, who are yet to be examined, therefore the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that a named report has been lodged by the complainant and the appellant has played an active participation in the offense in question. The bail application of co-accused Durgesh Vishwakarma has been dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 17.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1514 of 2025, and the case of the present appellant is also similar to the case of Durgesh Vishwakarma. The trial of the case has been started; therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application as well as the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material available in the charge sheet, the manner in which the offense is said to have been committed by the accused persons, and the role of the present appellant as stated by the witnesses in their statement, further that the trial of the case has already been commenced and some of the 4 witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. His bail application is therefore rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved