1 2025:CGHC:50871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1884 of 2025 1 - Shubham Yadav @ Siddhu S/o Shri Dujram Yadav Aged About 23 Years Occupation Laborer R/o Railway Banglapara, Ward No. 39, P.S. City Kotwali, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mahila Thana Raigarh District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 13.10.2025. 1. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2025, the victim appeared through virtual mode from the DLSA Raigarh before this Court and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. Her objection is taken on record. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14 A (2) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.10.14 12:25:13 +0530 2 (Atrocities Act), Raigarh in Special Criminal Case (Atrocities Act) No. 25/2025, whereby by the regular bail application of the appellant has been rejected. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.06.2025, the victim has lodged a written complaint with the allegation that she introduced with the appellant on 27.05.2019 and thereafter he developed intimacy with her. They exchanged their mobile number and he may physical relation with her on 09.02.2021 on the pretext of marriage and thereafter, continued in making physical relation with her by giving allurement that he will marry with her and ultimately, in the month of February, 2025, he refused to marry with her. On the report made by the victim, the FIR has been registered. The appellant has been arrested on 23.06.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim is a major girl, having 32 years of age and the appellant is aged about 23 years. It is not the appellant but the victim herself has pressurized the appellant to perform marriage with her. She engaged in making consensual physical relation and their relation continued from 2021-2025. Such a long consensual relation does not amount to rape. The appellant is in jail since 23.06.2025 and final adjudication will take its own time, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that there is sufficient material against the appellant that he sexually exploited the victim who belongs to the particular caste and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 3 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during the investigation, further considering the 183 B.N.S.S. statement of the victim and also the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.08.2025, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 7. Consequently, this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby allowed. 8. It is directed that the appellant Shubham Yadav @ Siddhu shall 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, on following conditions:- (i) He 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) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika