1 2025:CGHC:38741 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1442 of 2025 Shrawan Rajbhar S/o Vijay Rajbhar, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Mahuwari, Naktu Mathiya, P.S. Kasimabad, District Gajipur Uttar Pradesh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant in Crime No. 57/2025 registered at P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 376(2)(n) of IPC and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.08.06 13:55:31 +0530 2 2. By impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bastar (Atrocities), Bastar Jagdalpur in Special Sessions Case No.3/2025, the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. As per the prosecution case, the victim has lodged the FIR against the present appellant alleging that the appellant has established physical relations with her on the ground of pretext of marriage and continued sexual acts with her from 02.12.2023 to 08.05.2025, thereby the offence has been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix is major and married lady of 35 years and she was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the present appellant. He further submits that there is inordinate delay in filing the FIR, for which, no plausible explanation has been given and the medical report does not support the case of prosecution. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 09.05.2025; there are total 17 prosecution witnesses and the trial is likely to take time, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. She submits that for the last four years, the victim and her husband are residing separately and the appellant has established physical relations with the victim on false pretext of marriage. 6. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 3 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 35 years and since there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Special Court, Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Special Sessions Case No.3/2025 is set aside. 9. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao