1 2025:CGHC:8472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 110 of 2025 1 - Aman Patwar S/o Late Narayan Patwar Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Near Church, Mouharpara, Manendragarh P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Jhagrakhand, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri F.S.Khare, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, Pl (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 18/02/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Baikunthpur, District Koriya in connection with Crime No. 105/2024 registered at police station Jhagrakhand, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (CG) for the 2 offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) & 506 IPC and Section 3 (2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 1.10.2024, report was lodged by the victim alleging that three years prior to the date of lodging the report, she was having friendship with the appellant through facebook and instagram. It is further alleged that due to the friendship, the appellant took her in his motorcycle to his house and developed physical relations on the pretext of marriage and they continued the relationship and whenever the prosecutrix denied, he threatened her. Consequently, FIR was registered against the appellant as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix is major and that there was delay in lodging the FIR. He submits that the prosecutrix was major aged about 23 years, the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 2.10.2024 and therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. Notice was issued to the complainant for her appearance through the VC or concerned DLSA but none appeared. Ms Swati Rajput, Advocate present in the court, is requested to assist the Court on behalf of the prosecutrix as Amicus Curae. She has stated that the appellant and the prosecutrix were having love affair and he committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and therefore, the appellant may not be granted bail. 3 6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the prosecutrix was major and further looking to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail since 2.10.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any such offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial. ii) that the accused/appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.22 13:42:27 +0530