1 2025:CGHC:35960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1287 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha S/o Ramgopal Kushwaha Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Badasra, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police House Office, Ajak, P.S. Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/07/2025 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. 55/2025 registered at police station Ajak, Jhilmili, District Surajpur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.25 11:08:25 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 15.03.2025, the applicant lured the prosecutrix and, on the pretext of marriage, established physical relationship with her. It is further alleged that on 17.03.2025, when the prosecutrix’s father visited the house of the accused, the accused refused to keep her. At that time, the prosecutrix disclosed that about a month earlier, the accused had taken her to the village Dalouni Khurd and committed sexual intercourse with her on 15.03.2025 and 16.03.2025 at his residence. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. By order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 55/2025, 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 the prosecutrix was voluntarily involved in a mutual love relationship with the applicant since January, 2025. The prosecutrix is a major lady, and she is a consenting party. He further submits that the complaint was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix and not by the prosecutrix herself. The medical examination of the prosecutrix does not reveal any injury or sign of physical coercion. He lastly submits that charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 18.03.2025, 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 3 Appellant. The prosecutrix supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. The appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix as the prosecutrix belongs to SC/ST caste. The prosecutrix was pregnant of 6 weeks due to the physical assault committed by the appellant; trial has not commenced yet; 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 their objection in granting 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 appellant, and the trial has not commenced yet, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10.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