1 2025:CGHC:17288 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 616 of 2025 1 - Ritik Sahu Alias Pintu S/o Jagdish Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhadi Patelpara, Thana And Tehsil Baikunthpur, District- Korea, C.G. ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O., P.S. Baikunthpur, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent For appellant : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 15.04.2025. 1. The present is a criminal appeal under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge [SC/ ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Baikunthpur, Dist- Korea (CG) in Bail Application No. 96/2025 Bilaspur in Special Session Case (Atrocities) No. 32/2024, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail is rejected in connection with Crime No. 02/2025, registered at Police Station AJAK Baikunthpur, Dist- Korea (CG). 2 2. Pursuant to the order dated 25.03.2025, the victim appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Baikunthpur and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. Her submission is taken on record. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 10/02/2025, the victim lodged the report that the appellant has sexually exploited her from 10.01.2024 to 08.02.2025 on the pretext of marriage and ultimately, he refused to marry her on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. The FIR has been registered against the appellant under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant is arrested on 10.02.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The victim herself is a married lady and there is no question for alluring her on the pretext of marriage. He is aged about 32 years having children and husband. She is residing along with her husband yet she is making allegation that the appellant allured her and sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage, which is impossible. Only to extort money from the appellant, she has lodged the report against him. The appellant is in jail since 10.02.2025 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during the investigation, particularly considering the age of the victim as well as her marital status and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 3 8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2025 is set aside. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before learned trial Court on each date of hearing unless exempted. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.04.17 10:54:38 +0530