2025:CGHC:20810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 660 of 2025 Pankaj Rajwade S/o Mer Sai Aged About 19 Years R/o Veerpur, Karampur, P.S.- Jainagar, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Manipur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ...Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06.05.2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 03.04.2025, victim appeared through virtual mode from the DLSA Surguja, and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. Her objection is taken on record. 2. Present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, ‘SC/ST Act’) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District-Surguja, CG, in Case No.09 of 2025, whereby the regular bail application of the appellant filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) has been rejected. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.05.08 11:05:42 +0530 Cra 660 of 2025 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.01.2025, a written report was lodged by the victim that the appellant has committed rape upon her on 11.12.2024 and 10.01.2025 on the pretext of marriage, and subsequently, he refused to marry with her. FIR has been registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023), and during the investigation, other offences under Sections 69, 64(2) (m) of the BNS 2023, and Sections 3(1)(w-ii), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act have been added and charge-sheet has been filed, in which the appellant has been arrested on 13.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that victim is a major girl, aged about 19 years, and was working in a private concern. Both of them were introduced to each other through mobile phone on 02.12.2024, and thereafter, developed consensual physical relation on 11.12.2024 and again on 10.01.2025. When both of them were taking photographs of each other, dispute arose between them, and report has been lodged by the victim. There is no injury found on the body of the appellant, and as per statement recorded under Section 181 and 183 of the BNSS 2023, there is no allegation that the appellant has committed the offence knowingly that the victim belongs to particular caste, and refused to marry her. Appellant is in jail since 13.01.2025, investigation has been completed, and charge-sheet has also been filed. Final adjudication of the appeal would take some more time. Therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that there is sufficient material against the appellant that he sexually exploited the victim on Cra 660 of 2025 3 the pretext of marriage, and ultimately, he refused to marry with her, therefore, the report has been lodged, in which the appellant has been arrested. Looking to the statement of the victim, and the material collected during the investigation, he is not entitled for bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, material collected during the investigation, nature of allegation, and further considering statement of the victim recorded under Sections 181 and 183 of the BNSS 2023, also that the victim being a major girl, and the appellant is in jail since 13.01.2025, and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for release on bail. 8. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant- Pankaj Rajwade, s/o Mer Sai, is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court in Case-09 of 2025 is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant shall also abide by the following conditions: a) that the 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 tot he Court; b) that the appellant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; and Cra 660 of 2025 4 c) that the appellant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by he said Court till disposal of the trial unless his personal presence is exempted by the trial Court. 9. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is restricted only for consideration of the present appeal. The learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma