1 2025:CGHC:38401 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1253 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Kumar Mourya @ Muni S/o Vashisht Muni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o House No. 1052, Ward No. 23, Ghasi Das Nagar Industrial Estate, Bhilai, Samta Chowk, Police Station Jamul, District Durg C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Ayush Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 04/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the bail SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.05 15:22:35 +0530 2 application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.365/2024 registered at Police Station Pendra, District-Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 79, 351(3) & 308(5) of BNS and Section 67 & 67(A) Information Technology Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Pendra police station, stating that she had previously registered a report against the appellant in 2017 for creating an obscene video of her and forcing her into rape. The accused was imprisoned but after his release, he began harassing her again, threatening to circulate the video unless she withdrew the report. On 20.12.2024, the appellant shared the video via WhatsApp in a group of her staff and friends and also threatened to kill her. Based on the complainant's written complaint, an FIR No. 365/2024 was registered against the appellant on 30.12.2024, under Sections 79 and 351(3) of the BNS. Subsequently, Sections 308(5) of the BNS, Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were added. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the victim is a major 3 and was a consenting party. The evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offences. The appellant is in jail since 23.05.2025, has no criminal antecedents, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail, submitting that the victim had previously filed an FIR against the appellant. After his release on bail, the appellant allegedly resumed harassing the prosecutrix and even circulated her obscene video among her staff and acquaintances. There is sufficient evidence on record against the appellant and the fact that the the appellant has two criminal antecedents. The trial has not yet commenced, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may not be granted bail at this stage. 5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposes the grant of bail to the appellant, submitting that the appellant has committed a heinous crime. Given the gravity of the offence, it is prayed that the appellant may not be granted bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case 4 particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant and also considering the fact that though the charge-sheet has been filed, the trial has not yet commenced, therefore, at this stage, I do not find it appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.