1 2025:CGHC:36994 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1349 of 2025 1 - Pratik Sawre @ Sonu S/o Mohan Lal Sawre Aged About 27 Years R/o Haldi, Tahsil And P.S. Gunderdehi, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gunderdehi, District - Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29.07.2025 1. The victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from DLSA Balod and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. 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 30.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balod whereby the bail application filed by the appellant under Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.07.31 17:19:50 +0530 2 Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.146/2025 registered at Police Station Gunderdehi, District Balod (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 331(2), 296, 351(2), 64 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 15.05.2025 at about 9:30 p.m. when the victim/prosecutrix was alone in her house, the appellant entered into her house and tried to outrage her modesty. It is alleged that even before this, the applicant had forcibly made physical relations with the prosecutrix when she was alone at home. Subsequently, on the report of the victim, the applicant was arrested on 18.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of drinking liquor along with the husband of the prosecutrix. He submits that on the written complaint of the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered on 18.05.2025 in which there was no allegation of commission of rape. The prosecutrix has also not alleged the commission of rape in her 161 CrPC statement and for the first time, in her supplementary statement made on 20.05.2025, she made the allegation of commission of rape in December, 2024. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.06.2025, no witness has been examined till date and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that in 183 BNSS statement made on 19.05.2025, the victim has stated that earlier also the appellant had physical relationship with her. Therefore, considering the 3 nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record and also considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed and trial has not commenced, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellant can be released on bail at this juncture. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai