1 2025:CGHC:49270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1911 of 2025 1 - Pratik Saware S/o Mohan Lal Saware Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 23 Years), R/o Haldi (Wrongly Mentioned As Hadi), Tehsil And P.S. Gunderdehi, District Balod, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O, Police Station Gunderdehi District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 25/09/2025 1. The victim appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from DLSA, Balod and expressed her no-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 28.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.09.26 13:53:25 +0530 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balod, whereby the second bail application filed by the appellant under 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(3), 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. The previous appeal i.e. CRA No.1349/2025 filed by the appellant seeking for grant of bail was dismissed by this Court on 29.07.2025 as the trial had not commenced. 4. 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 appellant had forcibly made physical relations with the prosecutrix when she was alone at home. Subsequently, on the report of the victim, the appellant was arrested on 18.06.2025. 5. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the trial has now commenced and out of total 13 witnesses, only 4 witnesses including the victim have been examined till date. He submits that the victim has not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. The victim is a married lady and she has also given her no-objection in granting bail to the appellant. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 18.06.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion. Therefore, considering all these facts, the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that considering the nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the 3 case, particularly the court statement of the victim and the fact that the victim has given her no-objection in granting bail to the appellant and also considering the fact that out of total 13 witnesses, only 4 witness including the victim have been examined so far, the appellant is in jail since 18.06.2025 and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that a case for grant of bail to the appellant has been made out. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.08.2025 is set aside. It is directed that the 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 the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 10. 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