1 2025:CGHC:45614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1719 of 2025 Roja Ansari S/o Kyumudin Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Jamsona, Thorababa, Post Awandhi, P.S. Devath, Distt. Rohatasa, (Bihar) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Mahila Thana, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate For Complainant : Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 08/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14 (A)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed against the order dated 26.07.2025 passed in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities Act No. 18 of 2025 whereby the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh, District –Raigarh, C.G. had 2 dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail. 2. Case of the prosecution is that applicant on the pretext of marriage established physical relation with victim/complainant who alleged to be a divorcee, having one child aged about 08 years. Appellant called her to his native place at Bihar, however, when she reached Bihar, it was revealed that appellant is a married person, living along with his family their and having three children. When he objected to the relationship she was threatened and kept in one room of his house. She thereafter somehow escaped from his residence and returned back to Raigarh. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered and the applicant was arrested on 07.07.2023. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the crime and he has not committed any offence as alleged. He submits that victim is a major married lady aged about 29 years and she with her own will established relationship with the appellant. Appellant has not narrated false fact of his having being unmarried. The said allegation is an after thought only to make offence graver. He is in jail from 18.05.2025, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for State opposes submission made by learned counsel for appellant and would submit that from evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is apparent that appellant by illegal means have deceived the victim that he is an unmarried person, called her to Bihar. He also submits 3 that there is apprehension that victim will be threatened and influenced by appellant after his release. 5. Counsel for the complainant, raises objection in grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 7. Taking into consideration the submission of counsel for appellant, facts and circumstances of the case as also the age of victim/complainant stated by counsel for the respective parties which is about 29 years, a married lady, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to satisfaction of Trial Court concerned on the conditions that: (i) He shall appear before the Trial Court concerned regularly on each and every date unless exempted from appearance. (ii)He shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) If appellant is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge alfiza