1 2025:CGHC:5083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 12 of 2025 1 - Budhram Sahu S/o Dhanukram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Lakhe Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, Near Verma Fabrication, House Of Girija Dewangan, P.S. - Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station D. D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate appears through video conferencing. For the State : Shri G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. The present appeal under Section 14-(A) (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed in connection with Crime No. 370/2024 registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for an offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and Section 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (2)(5), (5-A) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2024, the complainant appeared before the P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur and made a complaint to NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.01.29 17:58:15 +0530 2 the effect that since 2021, complainant and appellant were working at Shriram Hospital. The complainant used to stay alone in a room on the side of the parking and there was no lock in the door. On 06.01.2021 at about 1.00 a.m. in night, the appellant entered the room and forcibly had physical relation with the complainant and threatened to not to disclose it to anyone else. Thereafter, the appellant used to have frequent physical relations with the complainant. On 15.04.2024, the complainant got married to someone and thereafter the complainant started living in her matrimonial house, wherein on 13.05.2024 at about 12 in midnight, the appellant entered and had forcible physical relation with the complainant and again threatened of life to not to inform to the family members and the appellant run away, then complainant lodged the FIR in this regard with P.S. DD Nagar on 24.09.2024 at 4:10 p.m. under the above mentioned Sections. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had given money to the complainant in December 2023 and appellant demanded money back from the complainant, she had lodged false complaint against the appellant. Appellant and the complainant had physical relations since January 2021 to May 2024 and FIR was lodged on 24/09/2024, there is no explanation for delay in lodging FIR, appellant is in jail since 25/09/2024, hence learned counsel prays for release of the appellant on bail. 4. On 22/01/2025 husband of the victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the appellant. His objection is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions put-forth by 3 the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the date of incident on 30/05/2024 and FIR was lodged on 24/09/2024, charge- sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court, there is no need of custodial interrogation, prosecution has not shown any previous criminal antecedent of the appellant and prosecution has also not shown that the appellant is trying to tamper the witnesses or evidences. Appellant is in jail since 25/09/2024 and trial will take more time to conclude the trial, therefore, I am inclined to allow the bail application of the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. It is directed that the appellant Budhram Sahu shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the conditions that- a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date to be given to him, unless exempted from appearance. b) He shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c) If he is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of his bail. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde