1 2025:CGHC:25785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 741 of 2025 Islamuddin Ansari S/o Banhu Ansari Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Dudhwal Thana Chinia District - Gadhwa Jharkhand (Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet ) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ramchandrapur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 19/06/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduld Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act Balram Place Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Special Session Case Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.19 16:46:58 +0530 2 (Atrocities) No.09/2024 whereby the 1st bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. arrested in crime number 03/2024 registered at police station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 365, 376, 506, 493, 376(d) of IPC and Section 3 (1)(b)(i), 3 (2)(v) of the SC ST Act was rejected. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on dated 20.02.2024 the prosecutrix lodged the report against the appellant alleging therein that the prosecutrix went to the house in Kododiyadamar for the cleaning work and when she came out for the loo that time the applicant came there and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by threatening to kill her. It is also alleged that the appellant took the prosecutrix Jhansi with him again committed intercourse with her and forced the prosecutrix to marry with the other co accused. Based on above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submit that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the prosecutrix was married to the other co-accused. No injury was found on the body of the prosecutrix. The appellant is in jail since 06.03.2024, out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 9 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the fact that important witnesses are remain tobe examined, without further commenting on merits of the case, 3 this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Trial Court is hereby affirmed. 8. However, considering the fact that out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 9 have been examined till date and the appellant is in jail since 06.03.2024, it is an exceptional case, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from today. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham