1 / 3 2025:CGHC:646 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2138 of 2024 1 - Praphul Das Mahant S/o Shri Lalit Das Mahant Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Pusalda, Thana And Tahsil - Gharghoda, Distt - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Dharamjaigarh, Distt - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Patel and Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocates For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/01/2025 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 appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/11/2024 passed in Criminal Case under Atrocities Act No.33/2024 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Act, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.07 13:08:30 +0530 2 / 3 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.223/2024 registered in Police Station Dharamjaigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 313 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(2), 5(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused came in contact with the prosecutrix in the year 2021 when he came to her village and they were in talking terms with each other. Thereafter on 27/11/2022 the accused took the prosecutrix to Dugrutikra and there he committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and thereafter he continued to commit sexual intercourse with her. In October, 2023 the prosecutrix became pregnant and at that time the accused promised the complaint to marry and got the abortion done but thereafter he refused to marry the prosecutrix. As such the offence has been made out. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged against him and there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and no explanation has been given for such delay. He would next contend that the statement of the prosecutrix is not supported with the medical evidence. He would next contend that the prosecutrix is an educated major lady and she was in love affair with the appellant as such she was a consenting party. He would therefore submit that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 3 / 3 6. The prosecutrix along with her mother appeared before this Court through video conferencing from DLSA Raigarh and submitted that she has no objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. The age of the victim is 22 years and the record shows that the victim and the appellant were acquainted with each other and there is love affair between them. The charge-sheet in this case has already been filed before the trial Court and it will take time to conclude the trial, therefore, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. 10. The appellant 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