1 CGHC010226972026 2026:CGHC:29014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5337 of 2026 Sohan Lal Yadav S/o Buturam Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Benapali, Tahsil - Dabhra, District - Sakti ( C.G. ) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Dabhra, District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10 .07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 74/2026 registered at Police Station – Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(f) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant/victim lodged a written report alleging, inter-alia, that on 02.03.2026 at about 2:00 p.m., her cousin, Sohan Yadav (the present applicant), called her and informed her that his wife, Sadhana, wanted to speak with her. Acting upon the said call, the victim went to the applicant's house and asked her sister-in- law (Bhabhi), Sadhana, what the matter was. Thereupon, Sadhana and the applicant questioned her regarding the persons with whom she used PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.07.13 10:57:28 +0530 2 to talk over the phone. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly slapped the victim, causing her to fall to the ground and lose consciousness. It is further alleged that the applicant took her inside the house and laid her on a bed. While she was gradually regaining consciousness, she overheard the applicant and Sadhana talking in the verandah outside the room. After some time, Sadhana went towards the kitchen, whereupon the applicant entered the room, bolted the door from inside, and forcibly established physical relations with the victim against her will. It is further alleged that the applicant threatened her with dire consequences, stating that if she disclosed the incident to any of her family members, he would kill her as well as her family members. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the victim has falsely implicated the applicant on account of a dispute relating to a piece of land taken on rent by her father. Learned counsel submits that the applicant’s father had demanded his share in the said land, which was refused, and, owing to the said dispute, the present false case has been lodged against him. The aforesaid facts have been specifically pleaded in Paragraph No. 2 of the present bail application. Learned counsel further submits that, in an earlier criminal case registered against the applicant in the year 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(n) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(b)(i) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST Act, the victim has already turned hostile. It is further submitted that, except for the aforesaid case, the applicant has no other criminal antecedents. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.03.2026. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, as per the allegations made by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the applicant committed rape upon her. She further submits that, although learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the allegations are not corroborated by the medical examination report (MLC) and the FSL report, both of which are negative, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS clearly supports the prosecution case. She further submits that the applicant has previous criminal antecedents of a similar nature. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail application of the applicant be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents taken on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the case diary and other material available on record, this Court finds that the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, has specifically alleged that the applicant committed rape upon her, although learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the allegations are not corroborated by the medical examination report (MLC) and the FSL report, both of which are negative, at this stage, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS constitutes prima-facie material against the applicant, further, the applicant is stated to have criminal antecedents of a similar nature, considering the gravity and nature of the allegations and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly the bail application of the applicant, namely, Sohan Lal Yadav involved in Crime No. 74/2026 registered at Police Station – 4 Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(f) and 351(3) of 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. Office 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 Preeti