1 2025:CGHC:32799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 963 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam S/o Radhelal Panchbhave Aged About 33 Years R/o Village - Ghortalav, Police Thana - Baghnadi, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - In Charge, Police Station - Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 14/07/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 191/2025 registered at police station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69, 115, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.15 10:35:33 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, it is allegation against the appellant that since 01/09/2020, the prosecutrix and the appellant had been having a love affair and on the pretext of marriage, the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter the appellant had married with some other girl. When the fact came to the knowledge of the prosecutrix, she stopped talking with the appellant. The appellant started threatening to viral a private photo of the prosecutrix and started blackmailing her, and thereafter she became pregnant and on 15.01.2025, she gave birth to a girl child and after 21 the girl child died. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 3. By order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 191/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there is unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident. He also submits that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He lastly submits that charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 24.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 5. 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 3 Appellant. The charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 6. The victim along with her mother, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady. There was a relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix since 2020. Further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 24.04.2025 and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 10.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu