1 2026:CGHC:22886 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4525 of 2026 Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav S/o Shatruhan Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o- Ekta Colony, Ashok Nagar, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O., Police Station- Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 332/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.03.2026, the complainant/victim lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating therein that on 02.03.2026, she was returning to her home from Chantapara along with her child and one of her friends by an E-rickshaw. It is alleged that when they reached near Laxmi Medical, the accused persons intercepted them and started assaulting the victim. It is further alleged that the accused persons also threatened her and attempted to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, upon making enquiry in the Sarkanda area, the victim came to know the name of one of the accused persons as Somu Yadav, along with other unknown co-accused persons, and accordingly lodged the report against them. On the basis of the said complaint, the concerned police registered the offence and, after due investigation, arrested the present applicant for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in the alleged offence and has been arrested merely on the basis of false and baseless allegations levelled by the victim. She further submits that, as per the prosecution story itself, the victim had initially stated that the accused persons were unknown to her and only after making enquiry in the nearby Sarkanda area, she came to know the name of one accused person. It is further submitted that no test identification parade or any identification proceeding of the present applicant has been conducted by the police authorities 3 during investigation, and despite the same, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the applicant has been made accused only on the basis of suspicion as some other criminal cases of similar nature are said to be pending against him. She further submits that the alleged place of incident is a crowded public place, however, no independent witness has been cited by the prosecution in support of the allegations made by the victim. It is further submitted that the applicant has total six criminal antecedents of the years 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2026, out of which three cases are disposed of and three cases are pending. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.03.2026, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, she prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are serious allegations against the present applicant. It is submitted that the victim has specifically alleged that the applicant along with other co-accused persons intercepted her on the way, assaulted her, threatened her and attempted to outrage her modesty. It is further submitted that there are total four accused persons involved in the present offence, out of which one co-accused person is still absconding and, therefore, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court. He further submits that the present applicant has 06 previous criminal antecedents, which shows that the present applicant is a habitual offender. He submits that considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, nature of allegations and possibility of 4 influencing the witnesses or repeating similar offences, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the case diary material available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further the fact that the applicant along with other co-accused persons allegedly intercepted the victim at a public place, assaulted her, threatened her and attempted to outrage her modesty. It is also reflected from the record that there are total four accused persons involved in the present offence, out of which one co-accused person is still absconding and, therefore, the charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the competent Court. This Court further takes note of the fact that the present applicant is a habitual offender and as many as six criminal antecedents are registered against him of the years 2015, 2019, 2021, 2026. Considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the seriousness of allegations levelled against him, pendency of investigation against the absconding co-accused and the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses or indulging in similar offences in future, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail at this stage. 5 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Shubham Yadav @ Somu Yadav, involved in Crime No. 332/2026 registered at Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul dewangan