Chhattisgarh High Court
CRA/1296/2026 of LAXMAN NAGESH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 26 July 2026
2026:CGHC:31948 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1296 of 2026 Laxman Nagesh S/o Hemnath Nagesh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Mokhaguda,p.S.Deobhog, Dist. -Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. -Deobhog
CGHC010191442026
2026:CGHC:31948
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1296 of 2026
Laxman Nagesh S/o Hemnath Nagesh Aged About 20 Years R/o Village - Mokhaguda,p.S.Deobhog, Dist. -Gariyaband (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. -Deobhog Dist.- Gariyaband
--- Respondent
For Appellant
: Ms. Jyoti Roy, Advocate
For Respondent-State
: Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice
Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
27/07/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) District Raipur (CG) in Special Criminal Case No.11/2026, whereby appellant's application for grant of bail is rejected.
2. Appellant is in jail since 08.03.2026 in connection with Crime No.45/2026 registered at Police Station – Deobhog, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)
(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. As per case of prosecution, the prosecutrix has lodged the written complaint before the concerned police station against the appellant alleging that she and the applicant are a student of B.Com second year in Pt. Shyam Shankar Shukla College, Deobhog and thereby on the pretext of marriage, the appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. On the basis of said complaint, case was registered against the appellant. Investigation commenced and during the course of investigation, appellant was arrested on 08.03.2026 in the aforesaid offence.
4. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that appellant has not committed any offence, the appellant is 19 years old young boy and at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was major and her relationship was consensual with the appellant. She would further submit that the appellant is in jail since 08.03.2026, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that as per the statement of the prosecutrix, on the pretext of marriage, the appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the her for several times at different places, therefore, the appellant may not be released on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for parties.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, and further considering the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused/appellant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for information.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Vasant