1 2025:CGHC:1136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2159 of 2024 Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Jai Kumar Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Ghui, Police Station Ramkola, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ajak Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned rejection order dated 20.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Surajpur, (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 10.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 07/2024 registered at Police Station -Ajak Surajpur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2-N), 450, 493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellant has established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and, thereafter 2 refused to marry her. Based upon report lodged by the victim, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Appellant is a widow lady aged about 29 years and having love affair with the present appellant, however, when appellant refused to marry her, victim lodged FIR against him. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 10.09.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellant submits that appellant established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and when she became pregnant refused to marry her, hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Victim/prosecutrix is present before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned District Legal Services Authority. She submits that she is having objection in granting bail to applicant. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, statements of prosecutrix, submission of counsel for appellant that appellant is a widow lady aged about 29 years and having love affair with the present appellant, further the fact that when the appellant refused to marry her, victim lodged FIR against him, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, further considering that there is no evidence/material to show that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, detention period of appellant ie since 10.09.2024, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 3 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-