1 2025:CGHC:3494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2225 of 2024 1 - Rajkumar Kevat S/o Lt. Chhedilal Kevat Aged About 19 Years R/o Village- Pakariya, Police Station Shivarinarayan, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatgaon, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 20/01/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as“Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raigarh, District Raigarh in 2 connection with Crime No. 127/2024 registered at police station Bhatgaon, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(10, 115(2),140(3) of the BNS and Section 3 (1)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.08.2024, the appellant abducted her and committed rape on her on the pretext of marriage. It is also alleged that the appellant had also assaulted her. Consequently, FIR was registered against the appellant before the concerned police station as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix was major aged about 22 years and there was love affair between them. He further submits that the appellant and the prosecutrix were working at the brick kiln and were knowing each other. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 07.08.2024 and therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. The victim and her father appeared before the Court and they have no objection if the appellant is granted bail. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the prosecutrix was major, they were known to each other while they were working in the brick kiln, had no objection if the appellant is granted bail and further looking to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and 3 the appellant is in jail since 07.08.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. It is directed that in the event of the appellant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that while on bail, he will not commit any such offence, otherwise bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-operate the prosecution during trial. ii) that the accused/appellant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. Iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.01.22 04:53:32 -0500