1 2026:CGHC:8121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1573 of 2026 Yash Sahu S/o Shri Prem Lal Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village - Parsoda, Thana - Korar, District - North Baster Kanker (C.G.), ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kanker, Distt. North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ...None-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2026 registered at Police Station – Kanker District – North Baster Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 126(1), 115(1), 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2023. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.02.19 17:14:24 +0530 2 2. The prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.01.2026 at about 4:00 PM, the prosecutrix, aged about 21 years, was allegedly returning from her nursing institute towards her house at Kanker on a scooty. It is alleged that the applicant Yash Sahu along with another co-accused intercepted her on the way, stopped her vehicle by removing the key, abused her, threatened her with dire consequences and allegedly dragged her towards a nearby agricultural field.It is further alleged that theapplicant forcibly committed sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, while the co- accused assisted him. During the alleged incident, the brother of the prosecutrix in stated to have arrived at the spot, upon which the accused persons allegedly fled after threatening them. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, Crime No. 16/2026 was registered at Police Station Kanker for offences under Sections 64(1). 126(1), 115(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that That the applicant has been falsely implicated by the prosecution in the present case due to a personal dispute and has not committed any offence as alleged against him; that there is no direct, independent, or credible evidence available on record to connect the applicant with the commission of offences under Sections 64(1), 126(1), 115(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, and the entire case rests upon assumptions and statements not 3 supported by reliable material; that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied and a bare perusal of the FIR and case diary shows that the basic elements required under the aforesaid provisions are missing, rendering the prosecution story doubtful; that the applicant and the prosecutrix were known to each other for a considerable period and were in a voluntary relationship prior to the alleged incident, and when the applicant came to know about her proposed marriage to another person, he approached her near the alleged place of incident to seek clarification, and the interaction arose out of a personal and emotional dispute after which the present complaint was lodged, creating serious doubt at the stage of bail and indicating that the incident was not a pre-planned criminal act but a private disagreement between two adults; that as per the medical examination report of the prosecutrix, no external injuries were found on the mouth, tongue, face, or neck and no scratches or swelling were seen, and the absence of physical injuries on vital parts prima facie contradicts the allegation of a forceful assault; that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 183(6) BNSS contains material improbabilities, including absence of explanation regarding injuries, allegation of acts at an open place without corroboration, and arrival of her brother without any injury or recovery, which are matters for trial and at the stage of bail the benefit must go in favour of personal liberty; that the entire prosecution case is based only on statements and 4 documents, no recovery is to be effected from the applicant, custodial interrogation is no longer required, and his further detention would serve no investigative purpose; that the applicant is 21 years of age, a college student, and has no criminal antecedents as reflected from the case diary, and the learned trial court rejected bail mainly on the seriousness of allegations ignoring the settled principle that gravity alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail; that the applicant has good family background and behaviour and no previous conviction, therefore his continued detention is unjustified; that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial and in the absence of strong legal evidence his further detention is unwarranted; that it is a settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly where the investigation is substantially documentary, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and the accused has clean antecedents; that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and there is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses; and that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to impose while granting bail. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the applicant/accused are grave and heinous in nature. It is contended that the prosecutrix, aged about 21 years, was returning from her nursing 5 institute to her residence at Kanker on a scooty when the applicant, Yash Sahu, along with a co-accused, allegedly intercepted her, removed the key of her vehicle, abused and threatened her, and dragged her towards a nearby agricultural field, where the applicant is alleged to have committed sexual assault upon her with the assistance of the co-accused; during the incident, the brother of the prosecutrix is stated to have reached the spot, upon which the accused persons allegedly fled after extending threats, and on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, Crime No. 16/2026 was registered at Police Station Kanker for offences under Sections 64(1), 126(1), 115(1), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; it is further submitted that the allegations are supported by the statement of the prosecutrix and material collected during investigation and prima facie disclose the active involvement of the applicant. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the supporting material available in the case diary, learned State counsel prayed for rejection of the bail application. 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 the offence, and the material available in the case diary, particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant/accused of having obstructed 6 the victim, assaulted her, and committed sexual assault. The case diary, along with the medical report of the victim, indicates that she sustained injuries, which lends corroboration to the prosecution version. The offence alleged is serious and grave in nature; therefore, grant of bail at this stage may lead to the possibility of the applicant influencing prosecution witnesses or absconding. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the material available on record, and the concern relating to offences against women, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, upon an overall appreciation of the material on record, the applicant is held not entitled to the benefit of bail, and the bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant - Yash Sahu, involved in Crime No. 16/2026 registered at Police Station – Kanker District – North Baster Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 126(1), 115(1), 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS. 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Vaibhav