1 / 5 2025:CGHC:3490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2224 of 2024 1 - Tikesh Sahu S/o Rekhraj Sahu, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Karwai, Ward No. 19, Banglapara, P.S.-Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajim, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Payal Jain, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 20/01/2025 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 28/11/2024 passed in Special Sessions Case No.49/2024 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Act, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.22 18:16:12 +0530 2 / 5 arrested in connection with Crime No.322/2024 registered in Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) for offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506, 376(2) (n) & 495 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant and prosecutrix performed marriage on 08/04/2024 in Arya Samaj Temple at Raipur and thereafter after 10-15 days when the appellant did not come back then the prosecutrix went to his home at Rajim then she came to know that the appellant is married and has a wife & two children. Thereafter, they started residing in a rented house in Nawapara in Raipur where the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and used to comment on her caste, used to beat her and also withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also extended threat if she discloses this to anyone she will face dire consequences. Thereafter, from 25/05/2024 the applicant left the company of the prosecutrix, therefore, an FIR was registered by the prosecutrix and the applicant has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant and the prosecutrix were working together in a Jwellery shop in Rajim and the prosecutrix developed feelings for him and used to ask him to get marry with her, which the applicant refused because he was already married. He would next contend that the prosecutrix has wrongly stated that she was not aware about the fact the appellant is already married. He would next contend that the instant FIR has been lodged with an 3 / 5 intention to harass the appellant and his family members. He would lastly therefore submit that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The prosecutrix appeared before this Court through video conferencing from DLSA Gariyaband and she raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the documents it is apparent that it is a case of consensual relationship by and between the parties; charge-sheet in this case has been filed and it will take time to conclude the trial, considering the same and also 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. Let appellant Tikesh Sahu, involved in Crime No.322/2024, under Sections 294, 323, 506, 376(2) (n) & 495 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 in police station Rajim, District Gariyaband, C.G., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 4 / 5 shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) the appellant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS 2023. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in 5 / 5 accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu