1 2026:CGHC:23343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1148 of 2026 1 - Yogendra Sahu S/o- Shri Yashwant Kumar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o- Village Sakrelikala, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/05/2026 1. The mother of the deceased appeared in person before this Court today and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 91/2026 registered at police station Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.05.15 16:52:58 +0530 2 3. The first CRA No.641/2026 has been rejected on merits by this Court on 20.03.2026. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant repeatedly harassed deceased Disha Maravi, using caste-based slurs and pressuring her for physical relations. Due to this, Disha Maravi, having no other option, committed suicide on 24.01.2026 by pouring turpentine oil and setting herself on fire inside room No. 105 of the Shivam Hotel and due to burn injury she died on 01.02.2026. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellant. 5. By order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 91/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that when the first CRA was filed by the appellant charge sheet was not filed, but now, charge sheet has been filed. He next submits that the appellant and the deceased both were major and they have love relationship, when the deceased attempted to commit suicide by poring turpentine oil and setting herself on fir, the appellant tried to save her and during this process he also suffered burn injury to the extent of 20-30% for which he was admitted in Balaji Hospital, Mova, Raipur. He has filed the medical documents and the photos of his burning injuries. As per the prosecution's case, the incident took place in a hotel room. Mother of the deceased also stated that the deceased told her that the incident took place in the hotel, whereas the deceased in her police statement stated that the incident took place near a pond at village Palgada. As such, the place of the incident itself is doubtful 3 in this case. In the dying declaration, there is no allegation of abatement by the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 24.02.2026. There are 27 listed witnesses in this case, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State and objector oppose the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant and the deceased had love affair, both were major. Further considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail since 24.02.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 11.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu