1 / 5 2025:CGHC:60981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2464 of 2025 Geeta Prasad Yadav S/o Panchuram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Madeli, Police Station Chura, District Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh. (Particulars of The Applicant Is Mentioned Correctly) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chura, District Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/12/2025 1. The instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31/10/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Raipur, C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.18/2025 whereby the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. of the appellant has been rejected. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.16 17:16:29 +0530 2 / 5 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.34/2025 registered in Police Station Chura, District Gariyabandh, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 376 (2) (n) & 493 of IPC & Section 3 (2) (V a) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 11/03/2025 the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint before the police authorities stating therein that she met the appellant four years back and they both developed affection towards each other and they both lived together. The prosecutrix alleged that the appellant ravished her on different occasions on the pretext of marriage and has also borrowed some money from her which he has not returned. Thereafter, on the basis of the written complaint, an FIR was registered and the investigation started and during investigation the appellant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady of 26 years. He would next contend that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has committed rape with her forcefully. He would next contend that the relation of the appellant and the porsecutrix is four years old and after four years the complaint has been lodged and no plausible explanation has been given about such delay. He would next contend that there is some contradiction and omission in the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. He would lastly contend that the trial will take some more time, therefore, the appellant 3 / 5 may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The prosecutrix appeared through VC from DLSA Gariyaband and she raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is already a major lady and they were in relationship for four years as such she was a consenting party and the FIR has been lodged after a period of four years. Thus, considering the same as well as the detention period of the appellant as he is in jail since 07/07/2025, this Court is of the opinion that since it will take time to conclude the trial, therefore, looking to the entire facts & circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. 10. Let appellant Geeta Prasad Yadav, involved in Crime No.34/2025 registered in Police Station Chura, District Gariyabandh, C.G. for offence punishable under sections 376 (2) (n) & 493 of IPC & Section 3 (2) (V a) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one local surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 4 / 5 (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed 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 appellant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in 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 applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such 5 / 5 default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu