1 2025:CGHC:28116 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 953 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Punaram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Borjhara, Thana- Bhakara, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Thana- Bhakara, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For the appellant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) (Order on Board) 26/06/2025 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 who has been arrested in Crime No.227/2024 registered at P.S. Bhakara, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 331(2), 74 of BNS 2023 and A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.06.30 15:46:00 +0530 2 Section 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(V)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Dhamtari in Special Case (Atrocities) No. Unregistered/2025 the application filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant and victim are neighbors. The complainant lodged the report to the effect that on 21.12.2024 after having dinner, she went to sleep in her house with grand-parents, brother and other family members. At around 1.00 O’ clock in the night, she was going to the bathroom in the country-yard to release the bladder pressure and on the way near kitchen room, the appellant was hiding and caught hold of her and tried to outrage her modesty. When she raised alarm, her grand father, grandmother, brother and other family members rushed there and the applicant ran- away by jumping the wall. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and complainant are neighbors and there has been longstanding land dispute between the complainant’s family and the appellant’s family, therefore, the appellant has been roped in a false case. It is submitted that there are 11 prosecution witnesses to be examined in this case and the trial has not yet commenced. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 15.04.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 3 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. She submits that the statement of the victim has not yet been recorded. 6. The victim along with her mother has appeared through VC and objected to grant of bail. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the trial has not commenced, I am not inclined to allow this appeal and grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao