Rajveer Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajveer Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025

                                                  1




                                                                   2025:CGHC:22736
                                                                                    NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                     MCRC No. 3537 of 2025

      1 - Rajveer Yadav S/o Rambir Yadav Aged About 19 Years R/o Madan, Sanvara,
      P.S. And District Pali, District Korba (C.G.)
                                                                              ... Applicant
                                               Versus
      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Pali, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
                                                                             ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate

SB: Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
09/06/2025

1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as

he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 452/2023 registered

at Police Station – Pali, District – Korba, Chhattisgarh for the offences

punishable under Sections 376 (D) r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and under Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 (as per charge-sheet).

2. Case of prosecution is that, victim along with her father lodged report in

the concerned police station on 15.11.2023 stating that the applicant

along with other co-accused persons have committed forceful sexual
SHUBHAM
DEY
intercourse with her on 07.03.2023. Based upon which, statement of the
Digitally
signed by
SHUBHAM
DEY
2

victim was also recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. and

thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 15.11.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent, he

has been falsely implicated in the instant crime, he has not committed

any offence as alleged. He submits that the F.I.R. was lodged with a

delay of 08 months and therefore, prima facie, the allegation leveled

against the applicant is false and baseless. He contended that a report

was lodged against the father of the victim for commission of alleged

offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. In the said crime, father

of the vicitm was arrested and soon after his release on bail, the false

report was lodged against the applicant and other accused persons. He

also contended that the allegation of commission of rape is lodged

against accused Sunil Yadav and Sachin which is of 27.04.2022. The

material witnesses have already been examined before the learned Trial

Court. Applicant is in jail since 15.11.2023, hence, he may be enlarged on

bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the

submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit

that there are specific allegations against the applicant of gang rape

along with other co-accused persons on 07.03.2023. He also contended

that due to the forceful intercourse, the victim conceived and also

delivered a baby girl which is also appearing from the evidence enclosed

along with the bail application. On the date of incident, victim was a minor

girl aged less than 15 years. He submits that the trial is in progress and

till 22.01.2025, 09 witnesses have been examined before the learned

Trial Court.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after

22.01.2025, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and

till date, only 09 witnesses out of 25 witnesses have been examined.
3

6. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, victim appeared before this

Court in person and she submits that she is having no objection in grant

of bail to the applicant.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of

allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties,

documents enclosed along with the bail application, I do not find present

to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of bail.

9. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is dismissed. However,

considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is in jail since 15.11.2023, learned Trial Court is directed

to expedite the trial and take all measures under the law for causing

presence of prosecution witnesses.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey