SONU SINGH YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010342412026 2026:CGHC:45315
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8218 of 2026
1 - Sonu Singh Yadav S/o Sagar Singh Yadav @ Jhabloo Yadav Aged
About 20 Years R/o Ward No. K-55, Sheetlapara, Pulgaon, Police
Station- Pulgaon, District- Durg (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Arjunda, District- Balod
(C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
27/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2026, registered at Police

2
Station Arjunda, District – Balod (C.G.) for offence punishable under
Sections 332(b) and 64(1) of BNS and Sections 4 and 5(L)/6 of
POCSO Act.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of
01/06/2026 and 02/06/2026, the present applicant trespassed into
the house of the victim and sexually assaulted her. On the
complaint made by victim’s brother, police registered the aforesaid
offences against the present applicant.
3. Mr. Arpit Parakh, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue
that the victim has already been examined before the trial Court
and she has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. He
would further contend that there was a love affair between the
applicant and the victim and the relationship between them was
consensual in nature. He would lastly contend that investigation
has been completed, charge-sheet has already been filed and the
applicant is in jail since 13/10/2025 and he has no criminal
antecedents, thus, he be released on bail as conclusion of trial is
likely to take some time.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Priya Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor and
therefore, the contention of consent of the victim would be
irrelevant. She would further submit that serious allegations have
been levelled against the applicant with regard to sexual assault of

3
the minor victim, therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail.
5. Victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing from
the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and gave
her consent for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary as well as the material available on record.
7. Having considered the fact that the victim has already been
examined before the trial Court and she has not at all supported the
case of the prosecution and she has also given her consent for
grant of bail to the applicant and further considering that charge-
sheet has been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and
he is in jail since 13/10/2025, this Court, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, is of the considered view that a fit
case for grant of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail
application filed by the applicant is allowed .
8. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on
bail, on following conditions :-
(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair
and expeditious trial, and

4
(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
9. The observation made herein-above is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet