1 2025:CGHC:34561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1177 of 2025 1 - Shankar Mongraj S/o Ramswami Mongraj Aged About 70 Years R/o BSP Colony Bhatgaon, P.S., Purani Basti District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Anjali Singh Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 21/07/2025 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 No. 30/2023 registered at police station AJAK, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 370(3), 370(4), 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.22 11:27:45 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 01.03.2023, co- accused Chintaram Koram took the victims and Khilshwar on the pretext of getting a job from Nagri bus stand to Raipur, where they met the present appellant and his wife. They all went to Aamgaon via train. After reaching there, the present appellant called someone and thereafter the victims and the accused all together sat in the car, where after a person already sitting along with two others in the car called someone and told them to arrange Rs. 1,70,000/- for each victim. On reaching the spot, one person named Bablu came and told the victims that victims would appear before the Court and consent to marriage, to which the victims denied. Victims and Khileshwar became scared and planned to escape. On 02.03.2023 at about 4 am, a vehicle arrived, and when all three were taken to some place, during the course, taking the excuse of water/urination, all three escaped and ran for about 5-6 km and reached the village Laanji, where they hid. After hiding for some time, they came back to the village Ghatula, Sihawa and lodged the aforesaid offence. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present appellant. 3. By order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Sessions Case (SC/ST Act) No. 14/2023, 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 applicant has not been name in FIR and no specific allegation or role has been attributed to the present appellant of human trafficking or abduction. Complainant and her friend have gone for job 3 out of their sweet will, however, owing to some dispute with co-accused Chintaram in relation to payment of advance, they came back to her home and thereafter lodged false report. She lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 05.03.2023, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised, 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 present appellant along with co-accused persons was involved in human trafficking, they used to get the girls forcibly married with their customers for monetary benefits. From statement of victim girl recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that appellant along with co-accused attempted to sell victim girl and her friend for the purpose of marriage for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/- each. He also submits that bail application of co-accused namely Kailash Dashare has already been rejected by the co- ordinate Bench in CRA No. 1723/2023 on 16.01.2024 and bail application of one another co-accused Suresh Kumar @ Bablu Dasahre has been dismissed as withdrawn in CRA No. 2242/2024 on 19.12.2024; therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The victim and 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 totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the 4 appellant, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10.However, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 05.03.2023, it is an exceptional case, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from today. 11.Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu