1 2025:CGHC:31691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1054 of 2025 Mantram Yadav S/o Late Ramdev Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Umariya Haal Mukaam Basajhal, Thana Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Ratanpur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14- A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside of order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) and for grant of bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.792/2024, registered at Police Station- Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 76, 115(2), 62 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that the allegation against the appellant/accused is that, on 08.12.2024 at around 6:00 PM, the victim, who has been physically disabled in both legs since 2016, was alone at her residence, when the appellant/accused unlawfully entered her house and attempted to forcibly remove her clothes. When the victim shouted, the appellant/accused physically assaulted her with hands and fists. Upon hearing the victim’s voice for help, her younger sister, who had just returned from the market, arrived and questioned the accused, saying “What are you doing?” At that point, the appellant/accused fled the scene. The younger sister immediately informed their father (the complainant) over the phone and asked him to return home urgently. Upon his arrival, the victim narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, based on the oral complaint made by the complainant at Police Station Ratanpur on the same day, First Information Report (FIR) No. 792/2024 was registered against the appellant/accused under Sections 333, 76, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). As the victim belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was also invoked. After completion of the entire investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Hence this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case and the 3 allegations against the appellant, are false baseless and malicious. He further submits that the said story has been falsely fabricated with a vindictive motive to harass the appellant as a result of there being animosity between the father in law of the appellant and the complainant. The appellant was merely on his job of grazing cattle near his in laws' residence in Umariya. During the course of the same, the appellant entered into a heated argument with the complainant and as a result of the same, the complainant, with an ulterior motive, has wrongly implicated the appellant by way of filing a frivolous complaint and as far as the investigation is concerned, there is no material on record to state that the injury found on the body of the victim has been inflicted by the appellant. Even as far as the statements given by the independent witnesses before the police authorities are concerned, it is submitted that none of the witnesses have supported the fact that they have seen the appellant physically assault the victim. He further submits that all the witnesses before police authorities claiming to have seen the appellant physically assault the victim are interested witnesses and are related with the complainant, Bhagwan Singh Paikra, who, with a vindictive intent, has made a frivolous complaint against the appellant as there has been a long history of animosity between the complainant and the father in law of the appellant. He further submits that in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and the appellant is in jail since 10.12.2024 hence, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4 4. Learned State Counsel submits that, in compliance of the Court’s order dated 12.06.2025 passed by this Court, due notice was served upon the complainant/victim regarding the present bail application. However, despite service of notice, neither the complainant/victim nor any counsel on her behalf has appeared before this Court or filed any objection to oppose the bail application. 5. Learned State counsel submits that from perusal of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it appears that on the date of incident, the accused came to her house and started forcibly removing her clothes. When she began to scream, he started hitting her with hands and fists on her cheeks and stomach. The accused attempted to force himself on her, but due to her screaming and the fact that she was on her period, he was unable to do so. When she resisted, he told her to stay quiet and assaulted her multiple times on account of which she received injuries also. Hearing her cries, her sister arrived at the scene, and she narrated the entire incident to her. By that time, the accused, had fled from the spot. She further submits that the victim has handicap person by both the legs however, from her statement, the said fact has not been mentioned there, but in her father’s statement, the said fact have been mentioned. Accordingly, the present appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the appellant and further considering the victim’s statement recorded under Section 5 183 of BNSS, it appears that only allegation against the appellant that he outrage the modesty of victim and in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities) Bilaspur in Special Sessions Trial No. 03/2025, rejecting the application of the appellant filed under Section 483 of BNSS, is set aside. 7. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed. 8. Let applicant, Mantram Yadav, involved in Crime No.792/2024, registered at Police Station- Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 333, 76, 115(2), 62 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial 6 court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal