1 2025:CGHC:32015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1061 of 2025 Mo. Noor Urf Raja S/o Sheikh Anish Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Kairi, Police Station Bausi, District Banka Bihar, Presently At Anjali Vihar, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Asseem Bhagat Gopal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 10/07/2025 1. 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 against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Case (SC/ST Act) No.12/2024 whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.353/2024 registered at Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.11 17:06:16 +0530 2 offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC & Section 3 (2) (va) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant is alleged to have committed repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, a member of Scheduled Tribe, at her house situated in Gandhiward, Kondagaon, between 15th May to 29th June, 2024. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the prosecutrix is a widow, she has a child, she is a consenting party to the said act of the appellant, there was delay in lodging the FIR and there are contradictions in her 161 CrPC statement. There are total 27 witnesses and till date not a single witness has been examined. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 30.10.2024 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the prosecutrix in her 161 CrPC statement has clearly stated that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant committed repeated sexual intercourse with her. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. The prosecutrix along with her father appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA on 08.07.2025 and objected to grant bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that out of total 27 witnesses, no witness has been examined till date, the trial has not commenced, the appellant is in jail since 30.10.2024 and the final conclusion of 3 the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the appellant has been made out. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant 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. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 9. 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