SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 29086

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Akhilesh Beohar, J
Bhikham Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 684 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gurudev I. Sharan
For the Respondents: Khulesh Sahu

The court is examining an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 430 of BNSS for an appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC, considering arguments on FIR delay and evidentiary gaps.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence - Application under Section 430 of BNSS - Consideration of grounds for bail including delay in lodging FIR and lack of conclusive documentary evidence regarding the place of occurrence.

Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending the hearing of the appeal.

Digitally signed by AKHILESH AKHILESH BEOHARBEOHAR Date:2026.09. 1717:28:09 +0530 CGHC010091562026

Heard on admission.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.01 of 2026, application under Section 430 of BNSS for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

By the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District Mahasamund, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. H-19/2024, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence
Under Section 376 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months
Under Section 506 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 15 days from the date of incident. The victim herself has stated that she voluntarily accompanied the appellant. She had neither raised any alarm nor sought help from anyone. He further submits that although the incident was alleged to have taken place at Joshi Lodge, but the register of the said lodge does not conclusively establish that the victim had stayed there along with the appellant. Conviction of the appellant is not

[[IMG_1]] [[IMG_2]]
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top