1 2025:CGHC:54973 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2204 of 2025 1 - Manohar Das Manikpuri S/o Shri Rameshwar Das Aged About 41 Years R/o Dompadar, P.S. Borai, Tahsil Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Borai (According To Fir) District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri K.K.Baharani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/11/2025 This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 11:14:05 +0530 2 “Special Act”) has been filed against the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Dhamtari, in connection with unregistered Special Criminal Case (ST/SC) No. (P.No. 604/2025) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 331(2) BNS and 3(1)(R) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint on 7.10.2025 at police station Borai, District Dhamtari stating that on 3.10.2025 at about 7.00 pm the appellant came to her house and demanded water. When she went to the kitchen to bring water, he followed her from behind, caught hold of her and pressed her breast. The prosecurtrix resisted and raised alarm. On hearing her cries, out of fear, the appellant left her and fled away from the spot on his vehicle. The incident was witnessed by Ishwar Markam, Raja Markam and other villagers. 3. On the basis of the said complaint, offence under Sections 74 and 331(2) of the BNSS, 2023 was registered at police station Borai. Since the prosecutrix belongs to Schedule Tribe, the matter was transferred to police station AJAK Dhamtari and offences under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix is major aged about 45 years. He submits that there is a delay of about 4 days in lodging the FIR and that the medical report of the prosecutrix does not support her version. He further submits that the 3 charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 11.10.2025 and therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 6. The victim is present in the court and she has raised no objection. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the prosecutrix was major, aged about 45 years, there was delay in lodging the FIR and further looking to the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the appellant is in jail since 11.10.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 8. 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. 4 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