1 2025:CGHC:22908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 796 of 2025 1 - Jaykumar Yadav S/o Ramdas Aged About 22 Years Caste - Bargah, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. 2 - Purshottam Yadav Alias Bholu S/o Satnarayan Aged About 23 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Sahanpur, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sitapur District Surguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Complainant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/06/2025 1. The appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities) Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) and for grant of bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.122/2024, registered at Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 20.04.2024, the victim has lodged the written report with the averment that, when she had gone to the village to attend her friend’s wedding on 20.04.2024 at around 11.20 pm, her former acquaintance accused/appellant No.1 namely, Jai Yadav called her and said, lets go to see the wedding in another locality, he said, then she sat on his motorcycle and went with him then he took her towards uperpara ghutri mountain, about a kilometer away and parked the motorcycle saying that he had gone to urinate than accused/appellant No.1 Jai Yadav and appellant No.2 namely Purushottam Yadav and other co-accused persons, Ajay Basod and Neeraj came there and they hold her hand and arms and took her to some distance and established physical relation with her, one by one. On the basis of such incident, the concerning police has registered the FIR for the offence under Section 376 D of IPC against the present appellants along with co- accused persons and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and the ingredients of the alleged offence is not attracted against them. He further submits that the respondent should have conducted a preliminary investigation to ascertain the role of the appellants before arresting them on 23/04/2024, as it is a fake case filed by the victim and her family. When the demands made by them were not fulfilled by the 3 appellants, they had gone to the police station to lodge the FIR and the same has been accepted by the father of the victim in his testimony before the learned trial Court. He further submits that there is a delay in lodging the FIR as the alleged incident had taken place on 20/04/2024 and the FIR has been lodged on 22/04/2024, that too at night i.e. 7:35 PM and the reason for delay as stated by the victim in her testimony is that she was scared, but on the morning of 21/04/2024, the victim along with her entire family had gone to the house of appellant No. 1 and they had beaten him up, therefore no question of a scared comes up, instead, it reflects that the demand of the victim and her family were not fulfilled, therefore, the FIR has been lodged. He further contended that in the testimony, the victim herself stated that she had called the helpline No. 112 and called the police at her home and when the police arrived, she did not tell them that such an overt act had been committed on her, nor could the police officers ascertain as to any kind of overt act had taken place with the victim and the accused/ appellants have been in jail since 23/04/2024 in a case wherein the as a fact, it has come on record that the victim along with her father, went to the house of the appellant No. 1 and demanded the money, which establishes this fact that the entire allegation levelled by the victim is bogus and made up, hence the appellants herein deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submit that there were total four accused persons involved in the present case, including the present appellant and the victim is stated to be a major girl aged 4 about 22 years and was subjected by the present appellants along with two others and it is further argued that the trial is in progress and the statement of the victim and her father has been recorded by the learned trial Court further as per the statement of the father of the victim, it is apparent that the victim had dial 112 in the night and called police and when the police came, she scared and did not tell about the said incident and thereafter, she had further gone to the house of the appellant No.1 for demanding money on account of which some quarrel took place between the parties therefore, she lodged a report against him along with others and the appellants are in jail since 23.04.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the appellants. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the objector oppose the bail application and submit that two co-accused namely Ajay Basod and Neeraj Vishwakarma, were also involved in the present case, who filed bail application before this Court whose MCRC No. 5992/2024 and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 on merits. They further submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded, the medical examination report of the victim corroborates the prosecution's case, documenting multiple scratch marks on her back, which is consistent with the allegations of gang rape against the accused persons. They further contended that the victim has given her statement, though she dial 112 but because of some fear she did not tell about the said fact to the Police and as the trial is in progress and further the bail 5 application of the co-accused persons have already been rejected by this Court. Accordingly, the present appellants are not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and the fact that the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of CrPC wherein she stated that appellants along with two co-accused persons have committed gang rape with her and further from the medical examination report of the victim corroborates the prosecution's case, documenting multiple scratch marks on her back, which is consistent with the allegations of gang rape against the accused persons and further considering the fact that that two co-accused namely Ajay Basod and Neeraj Vishwakarma, were also involved in the present case, who filed bail application before this Court whose MCRC No. 5992/2024 and the same was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 further, the trial is in progress and the statement of the victim and her father has already been recorded by the learned trial Court hence, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the appellants namely-Jay Kumar Yadav and Purshottam Yadav Alias Bholu, involved in Crime No.122/2024, registered at Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(D) of 6 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal