1 2026:CGHC:11900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 552 of 2026 1 - Sagar Yadav S/o Rambharos Yadav, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Dhourpur, Ps Dhourpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho To Ps Kotwali, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate. For State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12.03.2026 1. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 26.02.2026, the victim appeared through concerned DLSA before this Court and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. Her objection is taken on record. 3. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) whereby the SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.03.12 16:47:27 +0530 2 bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 546/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District- Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 4. As per the prosecution case, a written complaint lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station Kotwali, District-Surguja (C.G.) alleging that on from 17.07.2024 to 24.07.2025 at Mahamayapara, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.), the applicant/accused had committed sexual intercourse with her on false pretext of marriage. Based on the said complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant under Section 69 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. The evidence collected by the prosecution is also not prima facie sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence. The appellant is in jail since 07.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail, submitting that at the time of the incident, the victim was about 21 years old, and the appellant committed sexual intercourse 3 with her on the false pretext of marriage. He further submits that out of 14 witnesses, only 2 have been examined, and several important witnesses remain to be examined; therefore, at this stage, it is prayed that the appellant not be released on bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellant and also considering the fact that out of 14 witnesses only 02 have been examined till date, therefore, at this stage, I do not find it appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.