1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2117 of 2025 1 - Kamlesh Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Rajendra Sinha Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Limhatola, Thana - Doundi, District - Balod (C.G.) (Appellant Name Correctly Mentioned) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Antagarh, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate through V.C. For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 28/10/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 05/2025 registered at police station Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.10.28 17:14:18 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the appellant was dismissed on merit on 03.07.2025 in CRA No. 967/2025 and the second bail application of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.08.2025 in CRA No. 1639/2025. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, between 10.12.2024 to 04.02.2025, on the pretext of marriage, the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix several times. Thereafter, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint against the appellant on 16.02.2025. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 4. By order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 05/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the written complaint, with a delay of 12 days, and the prosecutrix was a 26-year-old major lady at the time of the incident. He also submits that there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 20.02.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant and the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 7. No one appeared on behalf of the victim, though notice has been served. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case, that at the time of first bail, the trial was not commenced but as of now, 10 witnesses, including the victim, out of 22 witnesses have been examined and the fact that the prosecutrix is a 26- year-old major lady. Further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 20.02.2025 and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalised, without further commenting on other merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 11.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu