1 / 4 2025:CGHC:1419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1974 of 2024 1 - Makbul Alam (Wrongly Mentioned As Makbul Khan) S/o Late Aabid Khan Aged About 32 Years Aadhar No. 6000 1220 1126, R/o Orsapat, Gahuhadand, Latehar, Jharkhand, Presently R/o Tahsilpara, Near Pani Tanki, Kusmi, Kusmi, Thana - Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh (Concerned Police Station - Kusmi) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02/09/2024 passed in Special Sessions Trial (Atrocities) No.07/2024 by the learned Special Judge (S.C. S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act) Balrampur, Place Ramanujganj, C.G. whereby the application of the applicant has been rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.10 13:01:00 +0530 2 / 4 2. The applicant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.04/2024 registered in Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 376(2) (<+), 506, 450 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 29/01/2024 the victim filed a written report dated 29/01/2024 alleging that the applicant is originally resident of State of Jharkhand and for the past few years residing in the same village. It was further alleged that the applicant has married one woman from their village and due to which the applicant used to regularly visit the house of the prosecutrix and around 09 months before, the applicant came to their house and forcefully took the prosecutrix inside a room and tried to establish physical relationship with the prosecutrix to which the prosecutrix denied and the applicant threatened the prosecutrix to her life and thereafter whenever the applicant found the prosecutrix alone in the house, he used to establish physical relationship with her. On 26/01/2024, the applicant got the husband of prosecutrix drunk and left him in the Basti area and entered in the house of the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with her which was seen by her minor daughter. Thereafter, the daughter of the prosecutrix informed about the said incident to the husband and father-in-law of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, pursuant to written report, FIR under the aforesaid offences was registered. 3 / 4 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the victim and the applicant are adults and are married separately with some one else and they are in love affair with each other and the physical relation between the parties are established with mutual consent. He would refer to the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has categorically stated that the initial date of incident was 07/05/2023 and since then the applicant has been establishing physical relationship with the victim and it is only on 26/01/2024 the applicant herein made the husband of the victim drunk and took him out of the house and thereafter established the relation with the victim, which was seen by the 11 year minor daughter, only pursuant to which the report was lodged. He would next contend that the prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 27 years and she was in love affair with the applicant as such she was a consenting party and the applicant is in jail since 05/08/2024, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that there are previous antecedents to the credit of the present applicant, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 7. I have gone through the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated the date of initial sexual intercourse to be 07/05/2023 considering the same and also considering the fact that the victim is a married lady, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 4 / 4 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. 9. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his regular appearance before it as and when directed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu