[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rohan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13020
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1662 of 2026
Rohan Yadav S/o Late Shri Raju Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Islam
Muhalla Saraypali, Thana And Tehsil- Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Saraypali, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) ...Non-applicant
VAIBHAV
SINGH
Digitally signed
For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
by VAIBHAV
SINGH
: Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. G.A.
Date: 2026.03.18
18:21:45 +0530
For Non-Applicant/State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
18.03.2026
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.
321/2025 registered at Police Station - Saraypali, District -
Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 309(6), 351(2) of the BNS 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.11.2025 against the
applicant with the averment that on 25.09.2025 at about 9 Pm he
along with his friend Uttam Kumar coming from village Telidipa to
Harratar on the way applicant Rohan Yadav, Vinay Kumar Shah,
Harishankar Dadsena and Ritesh patel R/o. Saraypali were staying at
Road and they stoped the complainant and his friend beaten him and
snatched the Redmi Note-5 Mobile Set containing SIM No.
8463811970 and cash of Rs, 4000/- and due to alleged marpeet he
received the injury on leg, hand, and backside further averment in the
report is that on 18.11.2025 he came to know that his mobile is kept
by the present applicant therefore the report is lodge in which the
alleged offences were registered and applicant as well as co accused
persons were arrested after completing the investigation charge-sheet
is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecution agency and
has not committed any offence as alleged; it is further submitted that
as per the complainant, the alleged incident took place on 25.09.2025,
whereas the report was lodged on 18.11.2025 after a delay of about
three months, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished,
despite the fact that the complainant and the applicant are known to
each other and reside in the same locality; it is also contended that
the names of four persons, including the present applicant, have been
implicated after such an inordinate delay, and that the mobile phone
allegedly seized from the applicant had in fact been given by the
complainant himself for use, and due to some dispute between them,
a false report has been lodged; learned counsel further submits that
the offences alleged are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has
already been filed, and there is no legal evidence available on record
to constitute the ingredients of the offence of robbery it is also
submitted that the complainant was medically examined on
19.11.2025 and no visible injury was found by the doctor, which further
falsifies the prosecution case, therefore, the applicant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application
of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case.
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 levelled against the present applicant, and also
taking into account that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, that
the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, and the
applicant has been in jail since 20.11.2025, and that the conclusion of
the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the
present case.
7. Let the Applicant - Rohan Yadav, involved in Crime No. 321/2025
registered at Police Station - Saraypali, District - Mahasamund (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 309(6), 351(2) of
the BNS 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond
with two local 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
Vaibhav
