1 2025:CGHC:11512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 287 of 2025 Mohd. Zafar Ikbal Khan S/o Mohd. Munnawar Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Kranti Chowk, Kumharpara, Sambalpur, P.S. Bhanupratapur, District Kanker (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Narayanpur District Kondagaon (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. PK Tulsiyan, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL. 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 01.02.2025 (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 20.12.2024 in connection with Crime No. 146/2024 registered at Police Station -Narayanpur, District :Kondagaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 69 of the BNS and Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of of the Act of 1989. 3. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage. Based upon 2 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. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Victim is a major girl aged about 27 years and having love affair with the present appellant. There is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant. Appellant is in jail since 20.12.2024, 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 has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for respective parties. 7. Victim/prosecutrix is appeared 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, statement of the victim, submission of counsel for parties, particularly the submission that victim is a major girl and having love affair with the present appellant, there is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution, further considering that there is no evidence/material to show that appellant make an attempt to temper with the witnesses, there is no any other previous criminal antecedent against the appellant, 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/-