1 2025:CGHC:33063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1210 of 2025 Amarnath Yadav S/o Pacchu Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Indravatipur, Police Station Sanaval, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. For Objector/victim : Mr. Chandra Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/07/2025 1. Learned Counsel for the victim recorded ‘objection’ on behalf of the victim in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.16 18:18:50 +0530 2 617/2024 registered at police station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. As per case of the prosecution, the victim has lodged a written complaint regarding the forceful rape with her by the appellant/accused on the date of incident starting from 08-09- 2024 to 10-09-2024. On the basis of the complaint of the victim, the police of Ambikapur police station has registered the crime against the appellant. 4. By order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Special Session (Atrocities) Case No.03/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim is a married lady having three children. He further submits that the alleged incident occurred at the bus stand, a public place with a significant presence of people, making it improbable that the applicant could have committed the alleged crime without being noticed. There was unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR as it was registered on 17.09.2024. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 25.12.2024, charges have not been framed and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. 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 Appellant. In her statements recorded under Section 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim has stated against the Appellant, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 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 victim is a married lady aged about 28 years having three children. Further considering the custody period of the appellant and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on 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 09.06.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- 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 Shubham