Chattisgarh High Court
Umesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12158
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2401 of 2026
Umesh Sahu S/o Yugal Kishor Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Kabir Ashram,
Banki Mongra, P.S. Banki Mongra, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Office, P.S. Banki Mongra,
Korba, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Umakant Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK
SHRIVAS
SHRIVAS
Date: Order on Board
2026.03.13
18:29:01
+0530 13.03.2026
1.The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 05/2026, registered at Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 70, 123, 87, 351(2) and 324 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. As per the prosecution story in brief, on 08.01.2026 at about 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, the co-accused namely Tarun Shrivas threatened the complainant that he would make her photographs viral if she did not come out of her house. Acting under fear, the complainant stepped 2 outside her house, where she was forcibly taken by the said Tarun Shrivas along with another co-accused, a Dial-112 driver, to a B-type quarter near Shani Mandir, Gajra. Thereafter, she was assaulted and abused, and her mobile phone was broken. It is further alleged that she was sexually abused by the accused persons and was also forced to consume alcohol. When she attempted to leave the place, the accused persons again assaulted and abused her and threatened to kill her if she reported the matter to anyone. On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the complainant, FIR No. 05/2026 was registered at Banki Mongra Police Station under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the course of investigation, the present applicant was arrested. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report/charge-sheet was submitted on 05.02.2026 against the accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that present applicant has been arrested merely on the basis of suspicion, and no cogent or substantive evidence has been ascertained against him during the course of investigation. Further, the victim, in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted by the investigating officials, categorically failed to recognize or identify the present applicant. The non-identification of the applicant in the TIP strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and renders the arrest of the applicant illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires of law, as no prima facie material exists to connect him with the alleged offence. He also submits that the statements of the victim are not reliable at first glance, as there exist substantial contradictions between her written complaint, her statement recorded under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 3 (BNS), and her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These material inconsistencies weaken the prosecution case and cast serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations made against the present applicant. He further submits that in the memorandum statement of the co-accused, namely Tarun Shrivas, it has been categorically stated that the present applicant was not present at the place of incident. This admission by the co-accused itself demolishes the prosecution's allegation against the applicant and establishes that his arrest is without basis, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. He submits that the applicant was apprehended merely on suspicion along with other co-suspects, namely Sanjay Rathore, Manish Sahu, and Ganpat Das. However, while all the other suspects were released, the present applicant alone was arrested solely on the basis of his cell tower location being near the place of incident. It is further pertinent to note that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of all the suspects was conducted on 13.01.2026, wherein the victim categorically failed to identify any of the persons, including the present applicant. Despite such non-recognition in the TIP, the arrest of the applicant was effected only on the tenuous ground of cell tower proximity, which by itself is insufficient to establish his involvement in the alleged offence. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he has been in jail since 14.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant, along with other co-accused persons, namely Tarun Shrivas and others committed gang rape with the victim. However, 4 he could not dispute the fact that the victim, in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted by the investigating officials, categorically failed to recognize or identify the present applicant. Therefore, looking to the nature of the allegation against the applicant, he is not entitled to be 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 submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the victim failed to identify the present applicant in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). The applicant has been arrested mainly on the basis of suspicion and the proximity of his cell tower location to the place of the incident. The charge-sheet has already been filed and certain contradictions in the statements of the victim have also been pointed out. Moreover, the main allegation is against the co-accused, namely Tarun Shrivas, who is alleged to have committed gang rape with the victim along with other co- accused persons. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Tarun Shrivas. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 14.01.2026. The conclusion of the trial may take some time. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Let the Applicant - Umesh Sahu, involved in Crime No. 05/2026, registered at Police Station Banki Mongra, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 70, 123, 87, 351(2) and 324 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
5
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iii) 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 fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) 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 him in accordance with law.
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
Abhishek