1 2025:CGHC:53055 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2103 of 2025 Bhupendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shyamlal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Saipara, Behind Sai College, Digma P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through- Station House Officer Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he has been arrested in Crime No. 228 of 2025 registered at P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 69 of the BNS and ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.10.31 14:27:21 +0530 2 Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)w-ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Ambikapur , District Surguja (C.G) in Special Criminal (Atro) Case No.18/2025. the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the present applicant and the prosecutrix came to be acquainted with each other and thus maintained live-in-relations and during the period between 15.05.2023 and 04.03.2025 the appellant established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and when she insisted upon marriage, the appellant denied to marry her because of their different castes, thereby offence has been committed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix is major lady of 33 years of age, she had voluntarily accompanied the appellant and was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. She further submits that there was inordinate delay in filing the FIR as it was filed on 07.04.2025 that is much after the incident. She further submits that there are a total 12 witnesses yet to be examined; the appellant is in jail since 16.09.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that the appellant had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the victim 3 on false pretext of marriage and the appellant was absconding at the time when the charge sheet was filed on 05.06.2025. 6. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the facts situation of the case and since trial is likely to take time and further looking to the custody period of the appellant, without observing anything on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on each and every date of hearing as and when directed. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao