1 2025:CGHC:52357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1958 of 2025 1 - Devanand S/o Kamta Prasad Nishad Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Kota, P.O. And Tehsil Bhinbhouri, Police Chowki- Kandarka, Police Station- Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer At Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 27/10/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2025, the victim and her husband appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Bemetara and submitted that they have no objection in granting bail to the appellant, their submissions is taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act) Bemetara, in ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.27 19:27:24 +0530 2 Special Case (SC/ST Act) No. 13 of 2025, whereby the application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant for grant of regular bail has been dismissed. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.07.2025, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint to the police that at about 02:45 pm on 12.07.2025 when she was alone in her house and her husband had gone to village Siltara for his work, the applicant entered into her house and caughthold her and dragged her towards bed and after removing her clothes committed rape upon her when the applicant inserted his finger in her private part she raised alarm and then the applicant fled away. She informed the incident to her husband and then the report has been lodged. The FIR for the offence under Section 64(1), 332(b) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been registered. The appellant has been arrested on 13.02.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix is a married lady having extra marital affair with the applicant she engaged in consensual physical relation with him and at the relevant time the husband of the prosecutrix saw the applicant them together. He scolded his wife and on his instance the prosecutrix lodged the report against the applicant. She would further submits that uptil the completion of the act of physical relation she has not raised any alarm and it is only afterwords she raised alarm. There is no witness of the vicinity or neighbourhood of the prosecutrix who stated about any alarm raised by her and in her statement recorded under Section 180, 183 of BNSS, 2023, she stated she informed her husband through mobile phone whereas her husband has stated that when he return back to his house, he saw his wife is sitting on the door by weeping. There is material contradictions in both theses submissiions, no injuries or sign of protest has been found on the body of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 3 13.07.2025, final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that had the prosecutrix been the consenting party, she would not have lodge the report against the applicant from her complaint there is prima facie evidence available against the applicant that he committed rape upon her, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and gone though the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of offence and allegations made in the complaint, further the material collected during the investigation, further considering the location of the spot where the alleged incident is said to have been committed by the applicant, statement of the prosecutrix and her husband further that the applicant is in jail since 13.07.2025, I am inclined to allow the appeal and release the appellant on bail. 8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.09.2025, passed by Learned Trial Court, in Special Case (SC/ST Act) No. 13 of 2025 is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. the appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:- (i) The 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court. (ii) The appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and 4 (iii) The appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial unless his personal presence is exempted by the trial Court. 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok