1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2644 of 2025 Basir Memon S/o Shri Rajjak Memon, Aged About 47 Years R/o Kumhar Para, P.S. Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. This appeal u/s 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant u/s 483 of B.N.S.S. 2023 in Crime No. 1437/2025 registered at Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G) for the offence u/s 296, 351(2), 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.13 18:08:11 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the victim was working in applicant’s shop and on 15.09.2025 the applicant took the victim to a house at Sarkanda and committed sexual intercourse with her and also took her objectionable videos and photographs and threatened her that if the incident is disclosed her photographs and videos would be made viral. Thereafter, again on 03.10.2025, the same incident happened at a Hotel, Sarkanda. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was money dispute between the appellant and complainant and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the provisions of atrocities Act in this case are not at all attracted in this case. He next submits that the victim was major and she was consenting party. He further submits that the incident took place on 15.09.2025 and 03.10.2025 there was inordinate delay in registering the FIR on 14.10.2025 which raises serious doubt on the prosecution case. He further submits that even the medical record does not show any external or internal injury to prove the prosecution case. He read out the contents of FIR and the 161 CrPC statement of victim and submits that there is no cogent evidence suggesting his involvement in the incident. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 15.10.2025, charge sheet has been filed; and there are a total 22 witnesses in this case and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the trial has not commenced and victim is yet to be examined before the Court. She further submits applicant has threatened the victim that if the incident is disclosed, he would viral the photos/videos of the incident and the mobile phone was seized from the applicant. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact the victim has not yet been examined and further looking to the nature 3 and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 6. At this stage, Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that his arguments are not completed and he may be permitted to further read the FIR/Challan and statement of prosecutrix to argue the case and prove that the victim was a consenting party. 7. The counsel argued for a considerable time and after hearing him at a length, the appeal has been rejected, therefore, it was made clear that he will not be permitted to further read the FIR and Statement and again argue the case at the cost of the repetition. After passing the order, he requested permission to withdraw the appeal, which was denied since the order has already been passed. Upon this, he remarked “You are not doing this correctly.” 8. Noticing such unacceptable conduct of the counsel, it is directed that his behaviour and argument be kept on record. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao