Umesh Sahu, vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010283062026 2026:CGHC:38449
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1889 of 2026
Umesh Sahu, S/o Kumar Sahu, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Dhongaitola
Police Station - Bhoramdev, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kawardha, District –
Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
31.08.2026
Digitally signed
by
RAJSHEKHAR
SONI
1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2)
of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of
order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge under SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.)
and for grant of bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime
No.12/2026, registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Kawardha,
District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
69 and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the victim preferred a
written complaint before the Station House Officer, Police Station
Mahila Thana, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) stating inter-alia

2
that since 2021-22, she has been residing in a rented house at
Rajmahal Chowk, Kawardha. She worked as a singer in the Sur
Sangam Lokkala Manch, Kawardha, and used to travel to various
places for performances. It is alleged that present appellant Umesh
Sahu worked as a percussionist (pad player) in the same folk art
group. This is how they became acquainted. It is further alleged that
after getting to know each other, present appellant asked for her mobile
number, and they started talking over the phone. The present appellant
told her that he loved her and wanted to marry her. She fell for his trap
and entered into a romantic relationship with him. It is alleged that after
a span of time, present appellant began pressurizing her to have
physical relations with him, and he assured her that they would marry
and live together for the rest of their lives, saying there was no harm in
it. It is alleged that on 18.03.2022, the present appellant took her to his
house at Phulwari Chowk and had made physical relations with her. It
is further alleged that following the aforesaid incident, the present
appellant repeatedly took her to various places and continued to have
physical relationship with her, due to which she became pregnant
twice. It is further alleged that the victim/complainant asked him to
marry her, he would say that society would not accept a marriage in a
pregnant state and he pressured her into taking medicines to undergo
abortions both times. It is further alleged that after continuously
exploiting her physically and forcing the abortions, present appellant
stopped meeting her and flatly refused to marry her. It is further alleged
that the victim/complainant approached to the house of present
appellant in Village Dhongaitala to talk about marriage, she discovered
that he was already a married person. He had kept her in the dark,

3
deceived her with the promise of marriage to establish physical
relations and forced her abortions. It is further alleged that on
15.02.2026, present appellant came to her house in Village Khairag
and once again, promising to marry her, he had made physical
relations with her again. He then threatened her, saying that if she told
anyone about their relationship, he would kill her. On the basis of
written report dated 29.04.2026, Police registered an offence bearing
Crime No. 12/2026 on very same date for the offence punishable under
Sections 69 and 351(3) of the BNS and investigation was course of
was initiated.
3. During investigation, the victim was sent to hospital for medical
examination where the doctor opined that no definite opinion can be
given regarding non-consensual sexual contact and advised for FSL,
the present appellant was arrested, statement of the victim under
Section 183 of BNSS recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, statement of the witnesses were recorded and matter was
further being investigated by the police of Police Station - Mahila
Thana, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.).
4. During the course of investigation, the offences punishable under
Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also added, in addition to Sections 69
and 351(3) of the BNS.
5. The appellant preferred an application for grant of regular bail before
this Court registered as MCRC No. 4738/2026 and decided on
09.07.2026, whereby the MCRC was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file afresh bail application in accordance with law, thereafter

4
the appellant moved an application before the learned trial Court i.e.
learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.)
which was decided on 13.07.2026 whereby the application filed for
grant of regular bail on behalf of the appellant was dismissed. Hence,
this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the victim is a major girl, aged about 24 years old and
she and the appellant were having affair and known to each other since
2021–2022, and a consensual sexual relationship was established
between both of them, which goes to show that the victim was a
consenting party. The appellant has been in custody since 30.04.2026,
the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court
and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the
appellant prays for grant of bail.
7. Learned State counsel submits that from perusal of the victim’s
statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that the
appellant has established physical relationship with the victim on the
pretext of marriage in deceitful manner many times, and thereafter, it
was came to the knowledge of the victim that the appellant is already a
married person. Accordingly, the present appellant is not entitled for
grant of bail.
8. The victim/complainant has appeared before this Court in person, and
she has objected the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, and she
has also endorse the submissions advanced by the learned State

5
counsel.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed thereto.
10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the appellant, and
further considering the statement of the victim recorded under Section
183 of the BNSS, it is observed that the victim is a major girl, aged
about 24 years old and she and the appellant were having affair and
known to each other since 2021–2022, and a consensual sexual
relationship was established between both of them, which goes to
show that the victim was a consenting party. In the present case, the
appellant has been in custody since 30.04.2026 and the conclusion of
the trial is likely to take some time. Accordingly, the order dated
13.07.2026 passed by the Special Judge under SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham (C.G.), in Special
Case No. 127/2026, rejecting the appellant’s application filed under
Section 483 of the BNSS, is hereby set aside.
11. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed.
12. Let applicant – Umesh Sahu , involved in Crime No.12/2026, registered
at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Kawardha, District – Kabirdham
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the
BNS and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two
sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with

6
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 him 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.
13. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make
earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within
a period of six months from the date of passing of this order, if there is
no legal impediment.

7
14. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned to necessary
information and compliance, forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rajshekhar