1 2025:CGHC:30286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 967 of 2025 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Rajendra Sinha, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Limhatola Thana - Dondi Distt - Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Antagarh, Distt - North Baster Kanker. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 03/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in Crime No. 05/2025 registered at Police Station Antagarh, District-North Baster Kanker for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(M), 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.04 10:18:46 +0530 2 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanker, District-North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (Atrocities) No. 18/2025, the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that between 10.12.2024 to 04.02.2025, the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix several times on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint against the applicant in Antagarh Police Station. Based on this, offence has been registered against the appellant and he has been arrested after completing the investigation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the prosecutrix is major, she has voluntarily accompanied the applicant and was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. He submits that the appellant is in jail since 20.02.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. She further submits that the applicant has forcibly committed sexual 3 intercourse with the prosecutrix on false pretext due to which she became pregnant and later her pregnancy was aborted. The trial has not yet commenced, therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The prosecutrix has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in granting bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, it is not a fit case to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.