[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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
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
(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,
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:-
(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
