1 2025:CGHC:18249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 2025 Anand Vishwakarma S/o Uday Vishwakarma Aged About 27 Years R/o Bhanora Mission Road, P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nishi Kant Sinha, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22.04.2025 1. In compliance of Court’s order dated 01.04.2025, victim is appeared through video conferencing from the DLSA- Balrampur (C.G.). On being asked, she raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14- A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.04.25 12:31:40 +0530 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in B.A. No.89/2025 by the Court of learned Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur Place Ramanujganj (C.G.), whereby appellant's application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of bail is rejected. 3. Appellant is in jail since 10.03.2025 in connection with Crime No.128/2023 registered at Police Station – Balrampur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506, 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Case of prosecution in brief is that the victim aged about 29 years has lodged a written report on 02.08.2023 alleging that in February, 2018 the appellant met her at Bus Stop and gave her lift and took her to his house and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on the pretext of marriage, he has committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and thereafter took her Mumbai on 03.05.2023 and there he developed physical relation and on 04.08.2023, he denied to marry her therefore, the report was lodged. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence 3 as alleged against him. He further submits that the appellant has neither committed nor participated in any such act which may amount to any of the offences hear in mentioned above. The allegation against the appellant is under Section 376 (2) (n) of the of I.P.C is not made out in case as the appellant and prosecutrix had maintained physical relation for about 05 years which was never opposed by the prosecutrix being a major lady aged about 26 years, and the prosecutrix married the appellant in temple in presence of her relatives and thereafter also sworn in affidavit in this regard. He further submits that the appellant and prosecutrix were living in Mumbai and Pune, but the prosecutrix returned her home and appellant could not tell his family about the marriage as the prosecutrix belongs to different caste and therefore, their relation became broke, hence, false report has been lodged however the appellant was working as Software Developer in various I.T Companies and he had no knowledge about the registration of F.I.R and his parents were made to sign the Absconding Memo from the police station. The appellant has never absconded and when he came to know about the existing F.I.R, he filed an Anticipatory Bail application before this Court vide CRA No. 195/2025 which was withdrawn on 18.03.2025 as the applicant was arrested during its pendency, the applicant is 27- year-old and is in jail since 10.03.2025, it will take much time for just disposal of the trial, therefore, the appellant may be 4 granted bail by this Court. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper needs no interference. 7. I have heard counsel for respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, statement of the victim, submission of counsel for appellant that there was affair between the appellant and the prosecutrix and there were in relationship for five years, further considering that the prosecutrix being a major lady aged about 26 years has performed marriage with the appellant in temple in presence of her relatives and thereafter also sworn in affidavit in this regard. Further, the appellant and prosecutrix both have lived together in difference places. Looking to the nature of crime in question and detention period of appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed in B.A. No.89/2025 by the Court of learned Special Judge (Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities Act), Balrampur Place Ramanujganj (C.G.), is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall 5 be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. C.C. as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant