1 2025:CGHC:61508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2444 of 2025 1 - Manish Chandra S/o Ramesh Kumar Chandra Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhadrapara, In Front Of Tripathi Aata Chakki, Balco, Police Station - Balconagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House O2cer, Police Of Police Station Balco , Thana, Korba, District -Korba (C.G.) (As Per Fir) ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Aakash Aahuja, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989’ is <led against impugned rejection order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge , SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Korba (CG) whereby application of the appellants <led under Section 483 of BNSS for their release on bail is rejected. 2. On 27.11.2025, the victim/complainant present before this Court and she has raised no objection in releasing the appellant on bail. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.18 14:49:53 +0530 Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.20 13:19:22 +0530 2 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the victim is a resident of Balco and the accused Manish Chandra is also a resident of Bhadrapara Balco. They knew each other since 2022 and were living together since 2023. Manish Chandra physically exploited her by saying that he would marry her. Manish Chandra assured her that he would stay with her for life and had physical relations with her. She became pregnant in 2023 and her delivery was in February 2024. On 9th January, due to assault on her, the child growing in her womb died. It was over. She had <led a report in this regard at the Balco police station. After being released from jail on May 2, 2024, the accused came to her again and apologized that he had ruined her life, saying that he would not cheat her again, and on June 2, 2024. he forcibly had physical relations with her despite her refusal. Now she is about to become the mother of the accused Manish Chandra's child. She is pregnant for nine months, so her family is hiding her by saying that she is a Satnami caste due to fear of adopting her. Meanwhile, when she told him that he had taken her home, he tried to throw her oD the train and ran away after beating her.Her family is getting Manish Chandra married, saying that she is pregnant and had kept her in their house for the last two months and wants action against Manish Chandra. On the basis of above complaint, FIR has been registered against the present appellant. The appellant has been arrested by Police of Police Station Balco Nagar Korba (C.G.) on 29.05.2025 for the oDence punishable 3 under Section 376(2)(n) of BNS and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record. It is contended that a bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix itself demonstrates that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was purely consensual in nature. The prosecutrix has categorically admitted that she had known the appellant since 2022, that she was voluntarily roaming with him and that physical relations were established with her free consent and without any force or coercion. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the prosecutrix was already married in the year 2005 and has three children from the said wedlock, and that her alleged separation from her husband in 2023 was only through a community meeting and not by a decree of a competent court. She was fully aware of the legal position that a second marriage cannot take place without a valid legal divorce, which fact has also been admitted by her. In such circumstances, the allegation of sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage is prima facie unsustainable. It is also submitted that there is no speci<c allegation in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecutrix that the appellant ever intentionally insulted or humiliated her by using caste-related abusive language in public view. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 3(2)(V) of the 4 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not attracted in the present case, and the bar under the said Act would not apply. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 be allowed, the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. Hence he prays for release of appellant on bail in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the Objector opposed the bail appeal of the appellants. 8. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. On perusal of records, it transpires the fact that the admissions of the prosecutrix prima facie indicate that the relationship between the parties was consensual, that she was aware of the legal impediment to marriage in absence of a valid divorce, and that no force was used by the appellant. Further, there is no speci<c allegation of intentional caste-based insult or humiliation in public view so as to attract the essential ingredients of Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has remained in custody since 29.05.2025. The victim has also appeared before this Court and has raised no objection to the release of the appellant on bail. 5 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10.Let the appellant be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (i) The appellants shall ile an undertaking to the eect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates ixed 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date !xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without su"cient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the appellants fail to appear before the court on the date !xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023. (iv) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates !xed 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 appellants is deliberate or without suicient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. 11. O2ce is directed to send a certi<ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti