1 / 5 2026:CGHC:23855 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2503 of 2026 Yugal Kishor Sahu S/o Ambalal Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Nara, Police Station Mandir Hasoud, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S- Mandir Hasoud, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 15/06/2026 1. Applicant has filed this third bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 524 of 2023 registered at Police Station –Mandir Hasoud, District- Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506, 323, 354, 354(a), 354(b), 354 (c), 363, 365, 394, 395, 397, 376-D, 376-DA of Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.06.16 18:38:37 +0530 2 / 5 Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged written report in concerned police station mentioning that on 31.8.2023 while she along with her fiance Manish and minor sister was going to Aamaseoni from village Chhatona, on the way at about 8:30 p.m., 7-8 boys followed them, forcibly stopped them at lonely place; one of co- accused persons put knife on the neck of her fiance Manish and threatened for life; co-accused Sonu took her near a tree, threatened her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, another boy came and committed sexual intercourse with her. Accused Sonu forcibly took her younger sister also with him, committed sexual intercourse and after his coming back, other boys one after another went there. After half-an hour, her sister came crying and then Manish was released, accused persons gave key of their scooty and threatened them not to disclose the incident to anyone or else they will get them murdered. Accused persons were 8-10 in numbers and they were armed with deadly weapons like knife. While they were going home, her sister disclosed that about 8-10 boys have committed rape with her and she complained of pain in her stomach. On account of assault by accused persons, Manish suffered injuries on his cheeks and face. Manish told her registration number to two motorcycles. Based on said report, aforementioned crime was registered against applicant and other accused persons. Applicant was arrested on 1.9.2023. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. False allegation of commission of sexual intercourse has been levelled against him. Victim No.1 has made 3 / 5 allegation that she was subject to sexual intercourse by two persons. However, FSL report with regard to Article “A” (panty of victim No.1) is reported to be negative. He also contended that allegation levelled by victim No.2 that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by about 8 persons in an open field is also not supported by the medical examination report of the victim. Doctor has not found any corresponding injuries on private part of victim No.2, but the doctor has stated that she did not find any sign of recent intercourse with victim No.1 or victim No.2. He submits that doctor (PW 14) in evidence has stated that in facts of case when victims were examined immediately after incident, there should have been corresponding sign or injury over the body of victim. Applicant is in jail since 01.09.2023 and thereby he has already completed about 2 years and 9 months of pre-trial detention. He also contended that there are as many as 52 enlisted witnesses, out of which, only 22 witnesses have been examined till date. Trial may take some time. He also contended that according to his information and also mentioned in the bail application, six criminal cases were registered against the applicant, out of which, 4 are of the year 2018 for alleged commission of offence under Section 457, 380/34 of IPC and 2 cases are under Cr.P.C. of preventive nature. He also submits that other co-accused persons namely Krishnakant Sahu, Nayan Sahu, Devcharan Dhivar have been enlarged in MCRC No.8952 of 2024 and MCRC No.975 of 2026 respectively. Second bail application of the present applicant was rejected vide order dated 11.03.2025 passed in MCRC No.1426 of 2025 on merits. Applicant is pressing this application on the ground of delay in trial as this third bail 4 / 5 application was filed after more than one year from the date of rejection of second bail application. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that second bail application filed by applicant was dismissed on merit considering seriousness of the nature of offence. Before rejection of second bail application, doctor was examined before trial Court whose evidence is relied upon for maintaining this third bail application. 5. Pursuant to notice issued earlier, victim no.1 is present in the Court along with her husband through VC. Husband of victim no.1 also marked his presence on behalf of victim no.2 (minor) being brother-in- law of victim No.2. They raise objection in grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, period of pre-trial detention and further considering submission of learned counsel for the parties that out of 52 enlisted witnesses, only 22 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merit of the case , I am inclined to allow the application. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail on his furnishing a personal bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:-. 5 / 5 “(a) 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. (b) 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 them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) 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 fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) 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 them in accordance with law.” 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen