1 2025:CGHC:11513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 298 of 2025 SM Das Manikpuri S/o Pitamber Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Managchua P.S. Mangchua District- Balod, ( C.G. ). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- S.H.O. Mangchua District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vidhya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/03/2025 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 27.12.2024 (Annexure A-1), whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 19.11.2024 in connection with Crime No. 29/2024 registered at Police Station -Mangchua District – Balod, (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 76, 333, 115(2), 127(2) of the BNS; Section 08 of the POCSO Act & Section 3(i)(ii) of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that present appellant has tried to outrage the modesty of minor victim and when she objected, he assaulted her by 2 means of hands and fists. Based upon report lodged by the victim/complainant, FIR was registered against the appellant and he has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Victim was examined before the trial Court and has not supported the case of prosecution. Appellant is a student aged about 24 years and there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant. Appellant is in jail since 19.11.2024, charge-sheet has been filed, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Victim is not appeared before this Court, though notice has been duly served, hence, Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim/complainant 6. Learned State Counsel as well as learned Amicus Curiae opposing submission of counsel for the appellant and would submit that appellant has committed the alleged offence/crime with minor victim, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. Heard counsel for respective parties. 8. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, statement of the victim, submission of counsel for parties, particularly the submission that victim has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, further considering that there is no evidence/material to show that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, appellant is not having any other previous criminal antecedent, detention period of appellant, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 3 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 one surety 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. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-