1 / 5 2025:CGHC:55140 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1860 of 2025 Ramesh Yadav S/o Vishawnath Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o Police Lain, Dallirajhara, P.S. - Rajhra, District - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Balod, District - Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 12/11/2025 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 06/08/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) (Atrocities) Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Special Case No.51/2025 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 arrested in connection with Crime No.236/2025 registered in Police ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.13 15:24:02 +0530 2 / 5 Station Balod, District Balod, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 64 (2) (M), 351 (2) of BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 07-06-2025, the complainant appeared in the Balod police station and lodged a written report that on the pretext of meeting a senior officer, the constable Ramesh Yadav accompanying her, while taking her to Balod Jhalmala, put something in the water on the pretext of giving her water to drink, saying that he would get the money given to someone else back, and taking advantage of this, Ramesh Yadav took her to his rented house and did wrong things with her and threatened to show the video to her husband. He had physical relations with her twice, and Ramesh knew that the victim was a tribal woman, yet he still had physical relations with her. Upon finding evidence of guilt against the accused, a case was registered against him, and he was arrested and taken into investigation. After a thorough investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant the aforesaid offences were registered against him and the appellant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He would next contend that there is no seizure of any video in the mobile of the appellant and the FIR is grossly delayed as after more than one year of the incident the FIR has been lodged. He would next contend that the prosecutrix was in business of advancing loan to needy people and in order to recover the loan amount she needs relation with the police, therefore, she was 3 / 5 consenting party. He would therefore submit that the appellant is in jail since 08/06/2025 and the trial will take some more time to conclude, therefore, 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, Balod, and she objected for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Perusal of the record would show that though the mobile has been seized but no obscene video has been found in the same and the FIR is grossly delayed as after more than one year the FIR has been registered. Considering the same and the record shows that the victim and the appellant were acquainted with each other and it will take time to conclude the trial, therefore, looking to the entire 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 Ramesh Yadav, involved in Crime No.236/2025, under Sections 64 (2) (M), 351 (2) of BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act, police station Balod, C.G., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 / 5 (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such 5 / 5 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in 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