DEEPAK YADAV @ DEEPAK vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010436662026 2026:CGHC:46940
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 10543 of 2026
1 - Deepak Yadav @ Deepak Son Of Ajay Yadav Aged About 23 Years
Resident Of Village Tangarmahri, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Mother Pramila Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned
Order)
2 - Surya Yadav @ Surya Prakash Yadav S/o Ajay Aged About 20 Years R/o
Balrampur, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pasta,
District Balrampur-Ramanujganj,(C.G.) ... Respondent
For Applicants : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
05/11/2026
1. Applicants have filed this first bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.
0044/2026 registered at Police Station – Pasta, District Balrampur-

2
Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offences under Sections 221, 351(2),
308(2), 356(3) & 3(5) of the BNS.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Rukman Barik,
who is posted as an Assistant Teacher and is presently working as the
In-charge Headmaster at Government Primary School, Putsu,
submitted a written complaint alleging that, for the past 8–10 days, the
accused Shravan Yadav and his associates had been repeatedly
harassing her through phone calls and demanding money for a
foundation established by them. It is further alleged that on
25.08.2026, at about 1:00 p.m., the accused persons, namely
Shravan Yadav, Deepak Yadav and Surya Yadav, unauthorizedly
entered the school premises and started videographing without
obtaining any permission. They allegedly disrupted the teaching
activities, behaved abusively and threatened that, if an amount of
Rs.10,000/- was not paid to them, they would upload the video on the
internet. It is further alleged that the accused persons stood outside
the classroom, shouted loudly, continued video graphing and
threatening the complainant and others, thereby frightening the
students and disturbing the peaceful and educational atmosphere of
the school.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submits that the allegation against the applicants are that the
applicant and another person were extorting Rs.10,000/- for the
foundation. He further submits that the applicants entered the school
and found certain irregularities, which have been brought to light, and

3
on that basis, a false complaint has been lodged against them. The
applicants were arrested on 14.10.2026, and no further custodial
interrogation is required, therefore, they may be enlarged on regular
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the applicants and another person unauthorizedly
entered the school premises and thereafter, under threat, demanded
money.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of the allegations, submissions made by learned counsel for
the respective parties, no further custodial interrogation may be
required, trial is likely to take some time, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of
bail.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that the
applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail
bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety each in like sum to the
satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-
(a) The applicants 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.
(b) The applicants 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 him under
Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(c) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,

4
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.
(d) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
vaibhav