1 2025:CGHC:32801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1208 of 2025 1 - Aman Kumar Singh S/o Vijay Kumar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Chopara Colony, Ward No. 03, Quarter No. 875, Bishrampur Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) (Complete Name Of Appellant Is Aman Kumar Singh S/o Vijay Kumar Singh, District Name Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet As District Surguja). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The S.H.O Police Station- Ganj District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Tarun Nayak, Advocate. 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 No. 96/2025 registered at police station Ganj, District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m), 89 of BNS and Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.15 10:35:28 +0530 2 Section 3(1), (w-ii), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, 09.04.2025, the prosecutrix lodged a written report stating therein that the appellant took her from Raipur to Patna (Bihar) and during staying in hotel appellant/accused established physical relationship with her and on 07.02.2025 she came to know the fact that she became pregnant, thereafter accused said her that she is a lower caste girl, he cannot keep her child and abused her and terminated her pregnancy by giving medicine and refused to marry her and also given threat to viral her pictures. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 3. By order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Case No. 19/2025, 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 a delay in lodging FIR, the prosecutrix was a consenting party, and her marriage was already solemnised on 01.10.2024 (Annexure-A-2) with the accused in Arya Samaj Temple. He further submits that the prosecutrix and accused were living peacefully after the marriage and were spending quality time with each other's company, photographs of the accused and the prosecutrix are filed herein as Annexure- A-3). He next submits that one missing report was lodged by the aunt of the prosecutrix. During the investigation prosecutrix gave her statement that she performed marriage with the accused and wanted to live with the accused, as per the said statement given by the prosecutrix, police closed the matter (Annexure-A-4). He 3 next submits that when the prosecutrix was pregnant then family member of the prosecutrix came to meet her and grand mother of the prosecutrix talked to her in alone and under the influence of prosecutrix’s grandmother she went to her parental house and when appellant tried to meet her they refused to contact with her and did not given any information regarding prosecutrix to the accused, then appellant filed an application under Section 98 of Cr.P.C. before the SDM Surajpur for searching and producing of prosecutrix in this mater notice was also issued to the T.I. Udaypur against the family member of the prosecutrix. (Annexure-A-5). When a warrant was issued by the SDM Surajpur on 20.03.2025, after issuing of warrant under pressure from her family member, she lodged a false report before the police on 09.04.2025. He lastly submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2025, 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 there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. The charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 6. The victim, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application, submitting that the appellant committed a heinous offence with the prosecutrix, due to which she became pregnant. Therefore, the appellant may not be enlarged on bail. 4 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case and the facts that the prosecutrix is a major lady, there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2025, marriage certificate dated 01.10.2024 between the appellant and prosecutrix is filed as Annexure-A-2 and further considering the facts that missing report case has been closed on 04.12.2024 on the statement of prosecutrix, the appellant was filed an application under Section 98 of Cr.P.C. before the SDM, Surajpur for searching and producing of prosecutrix, and 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. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 11.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