1 2025:CGHC:56881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2256 of 2025  Kundan Kumar Singh S/o Pramod Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Pethari, Police Station - Jamhor Naveen Nagar, District - Aurangabad (Bihar) ... Appellant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Gandhi Nagar, District - Surguja (C.G.) ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For State : Ms. Nupur Trievedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 24.11.2025 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 22.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Surguja (CG) whereby application of the appellant filed under Section 483 of BNSS for his release on bail is rejected. 2. The appellant has been arrested by Police of Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja (C.G.) on 13.07.2025 for alleged Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.11.24 17:25:26 +0530 2 offence punishable under Section 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the victim and the appellant communicated via mobile phone and the appellant visited the victim’s home. The appellant has given assurance of marriage to the prosecutrix and established physical relationship with the prosecutrix. They had physical relation on 02.12.2018 and from 12.01.2019, they were living as husband and wife for 4-5 years in Tehsil Katghora, District Jashpur. Since the appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix, therefore the prosecutrix has submitted written report at police station and on the basis of the written report of the prosecutrix, the present FIR was lodge against the appellant for the commission of offence which is punishable under Section 69, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS and 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim is a major lady and there is no question for alluring her on the pretext of marriage. They were in a love affair and had consensual relationship. The statement of the prosecution witnesses does not disclose the commission of rape as alleged under pretext of marriage being an adult lady. The allegation under the statement of the prosecutrix does not reveal that offence has been committed as she belongs to Schedule Caste nor the complaint makes out any such case. 3 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the written complaint and the FIR also does not disclose prima facie offence against the appellant that appellant has criminally intimated to the complainant to cause injury, reputation or threat to the complainant. Hence he prays for release of appellant on bail in the interest of justice. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Pursuant to order of this Court, today victim/complainant appeared before this Court through DLSA Surguja and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 8. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, contents of statement of complainant/victim, in which, victim has only made general allegation against the appellant and also considering the fact that the victim is a major lady and there is affair between the appellant and the victim for last 8 years and they were living as husband and wife for 4-5 years, moreover the absence of any material indicating that the alleged acts were committed on account of caste considerations, and the appellant appears to have been implicated in a dispute arising out of a strained personal relationship, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 4 10.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 appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant 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 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 appellant 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. 11. 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