MOHAN YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010375472026 2026:CGHC:46267
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2467 of 2026
1 - Mohan Yadav S/o Hiradhar Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Sapda
Katharpara, P.S. Dhourpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
… Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Dhourpur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment on Board
02/11/2026
1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section
14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for
setting aside of order dated 17/09/2026 passed by the Special

2
Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in
Special Sessions Case No. 33/2026 whereby the regular bail
application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in
connection with Crime No. 33/2026 registered at Police Station
Dhourpur, District Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2), 3(5), 126(2),
324(1), 117(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v-a)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant
Parmeshwar Paikra, who happens to be a member of Janpad
Panchayat, lodged a report on 18/05/2026 to the effect that while
he was trying to stop construction of bridge, appellant and other
co-accused persons abused him in the name of his caste and
assaulted him with a wooden plank. On such complaint, FIR was
registered against the appellant and other accused persons for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(3),
115(2), 3(5), 126(2), 324(1), 117(2) of BNS and subsequently, at
the time of filing of the charge-sheet, Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S)
and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act of 1989 were also added.
3. Mr. Nishikant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
would contend that complainant, who is a member of Janpad
Panchayat, stopped the work of construction of bridge which was
being carried out by the appellant which resulted in a scuffle
between the parties but the allegation with regard to use of filthy
language in the name of complainant’s caste is absolutely false.

3
He would further contend that the injuries suffered by the
complainant are also simple in nature; there is no previous
criminal antecedent of the appellant, charge-sheet has already
been filed and the appellant is in jail since 17/09/2026 and since
conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the
appellant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Gupta, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, opposes the criminal appeal and
submits that the appellant herein abused the complainant in the
name of his caste and assaulted him by using wooden plank. He
would further contend that complainant sustained injuries on his
head which were grievous in nature, therefore, this bail application
is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case
diary and went through the material available on record.
6. Having considered the fact that on 18/05/2026, when the FIR was
lodged, offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) and
3(2)(v-a) of the Act of 1989 were not added rather those sections
were inserted at the time of filing of the charge-sheet and further
considering that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in
jail since 17/09/2026 and conclusion of trial will likely take some
time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated
17/09/2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act

4
(Atrocities), Surguja, Ambikapur is hereby set-aside . The
Appellant – Mohan Yadav 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 appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued
and the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant 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.

5
8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should
make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously
as possible.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet