1 2026:CGHC:11651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 499 of 2026 1 - Nupendra Kumar Yadav @ Bhola Yadav S/o. Gupta Nand Yadav, Aged About 37 Years R/o. Newari Khurd, Police Station- Balod, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Balod, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Adv. through V.C. and Mr. Amit Nayak, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/03/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 220/2025 registered at police station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 62, 75(2) and 318(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(b)(ii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.12 10:39:28 +0530 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant lodged a report stating that on 14.05.2025, she received a phone call from Sarpanch Nupendra Bhola Yadav/appellant, who solicited a bribe in exchange for securing her appointment as Anganwadi Assistant. When she refused, the appellant made inappropriate suggestions and gestures, which constitute sexual harassment. He also pressured her to arrange money, referencing a caste certificate issue. Further, on 16.05.2025, again allegedly contacted her and repeated such objectionable conduct by making indecent gestures and suggestive expressions. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 3. By order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 220/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that at the time of registration of FIR, no offence under the SC/ST Act was alleged. He lastly submits that charge sheet has been filed, the appellant is in jail since 28.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 6. The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady. She has not raised objection to grant of bail to the appellant. Further considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 28.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 10.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu