1 2025:CGHC:8996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 209 of 2025 Santan Kumar Mehta S/o Laldev Mahto Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Padwa Bhuchgi Tola, P.S. Padwa, District Palamu (Jharkhand) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For Respondent-State: Mr. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 20.02.2025 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 filed against impugned rejection order dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) in Crime No. 682 of 2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur District Surguja (CG) whereby appellants' application filed under Section 483 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 20.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.682/2024 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 88 of the BNS and section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellant under the pretext of marriage the appellant committed sexual intercourse with the victim on 2 several occasions and as a result of which she became pregnant and even on two occasions she got aborted by administering some medicine and lastly on 14.08.2024 the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her and when she asked for marriage the appellant denied the marriage on the ground that he is not having sufficient source of income and thereafter he is not responding to her phone calls. Based upon report lodged by the victim, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the order of conviction cannot be sustained. The victim is aged about 25 years and she is a consenting party. There is no medical evidence in regard to her abortion and there is no definite opinion given by the doctor. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant and there is a delay of lodging FIR against the appellant for approximately three years. Appellant is in jail since 20.10.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposing submission of counsel for the appellant submits that appellant established physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and when she forced him to marry her, he refused to marry her, hence, appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Victim/prosecutrix is present before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned District Legal Services Authority. She submits that she is having objection in granting bail to appellant. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, statements of prosecutrix, submission of counsel for appellant that 3 appellant and the prosecutrix was having love affair, further the fact that when the appellant refused to marry her, victim lodged FIR against him, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, detention period of appellant ie since 20.10.2024, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 9. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned rejection order (Annexure A-1) is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on regular bail upon his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that:- a) Appellant shall appear before trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. b) Appellant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza