1 2025:CGHC:61730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2413 of 2025  Sagar Yadav S/o Dayashankar Yadav Aged About 18 Years 5 Months R/o Gattibuda, Ghoidand Police Out Post Kardega, P.S. Tapkara District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus  The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anusuchi Jati Kalyan Thana (Ajak) Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate. For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.12.2025 1. This is the third appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989’ is filed against impugned rejection order dated 24.09.2025(Annexure A-1) passed by learned Additional Session Judge, on behalf of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jashpur District Jashpur (CG) whereby application of the appellants filed under Section 483 of BNSS for their release on bail is rejected. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 19.11.2025, today the victim/complainant present before this Court and she has raised 2 no objection in releasing the appellant on bail. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2024, the victim/complainant has lodged written report stating that on 14.07.2024 at about 10.30 PM, the appellant came into her house, knocked the door when the victim has opened the door then the appellant has taken her by pulling nearby Mahuwa Tree where he has committed rape upon her while dragging her mouth on the point of knife thereafter, he fled away from the spot. Hence FIR bearing Crime No. 84/2024 registered at Police Station Tapkara (C.G.) against the appellant for the offence punishable U/s. 64(1), 75,78,87,351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1)(w-i) 3(2-v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant most respectfully submits that the prosecution case stands completely demolished by the categorical admissions made by the prosecutrix herself during her deposition vide Annexure A/5. The prosecutrix has unequivocally admitted that her husband was working at Mumbai, Maharashtra, while she was residing in the village, and during that period she voluntarily developed acquaintance with the appellant, which subsequently turned into a consensual love relationship. She has further admitted that after developing love relations, both of them used to live together and move around willingly, which clearly establishes consent and rules out any element of force or coercion. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has 3 categorically stated that when her husband came to know about the love relationship, he assaulted her, threatened her with dire consequences and compelled her to lodge a false report against the appellant. Such an admission strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and renders the FIR and subsequent proceedings highly doubtful. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecutrix has expressly admitted that the appellant never committed any wrongful act with her and that she levelled the allegation of rape only at the insistence of her husband. In view of the above clear admissions, there remains no prima facie material to sustain the allegations against the appellant. The essential ingredients of the offence of rape, namely absence of consent and use of force, are conspicuously absent. The prosecution case, being founded on a false and coerced version, is liable to be rejected. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the appellant be granted appropriate relief, as the continuation of proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the categorical admissions made by the prosecutrix in 4 her deposition (Annexure A/5), the absence of any prima facie material indicating use of force or lack of consent, and further taking note of the statement made by the victim/complainant before this Court that she has no objection to the release of the appellant on bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued incarceration of the appellant is not warranted at this stage. Without commenting on the merits of the case, and having regard to the nature of evidence available on record, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Act of 1989 is allowed, the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be released on bail 9. Let the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (i) The appellants shall ile an undertaking to the effect 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 fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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 fixed 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 5 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 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. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti