1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 957 of 2025 Firoz Ahmad @ Shahroz S/o Isthikar Ahmad Aged About 22 Years R/o Jakha Shivpur Puregulab Haidar Hall Bhanauli Isauli Road, Post Bhanauli, PS Musafirkhana, District Amethi, U.P. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Makdi, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 26.06.2025 1. The victim along with her mother appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from DLSA, Kondagaon and objected in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.28 15:16:37 +0530 2 appellant against the order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SCST (PA) Act, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (SCST Act) No.01/2025 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.68/2024 registered at Police Station Makdi, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 07.06.2023, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the victim, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community, at her house on the pretext of marriage. It is alleged that the appellant took nude photographs of the victim on his mobile phone and threatened that if she did not go with him to Mumbai, he would make the photographs viral on social media. The appellant took the victim to Mumbai, where he had sexual intercourse with her several times. On report being lodged in this regard, the appellant was arrested on 11.10.2024. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the appellant is the husband of the victim and he has filed his marriage certificate. He submits that the appellant and the victim were living together as husband and wife for 1 year and 5 months. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 11.10.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, the trial has not commenced and considering the nature of offence, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 6. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant and also considering the fact that the trial has not commenced, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellant can be released on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai