1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 848 of 2026 Narendra Alias Chhotu Sidar S/o Subhas Chandra Sidar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kasaipali, P.S. Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pusour District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Avelin Juneja Gambhir, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 20/04/2026 1. The victim has appeared virtually before this Court and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Appellant. 2. This is the second appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 194/2024 registered at police station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.21 15:08:44 +0530 2 Sections 70(1), 140(3), 351 (3) of BNS and under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1)(w-i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. The appeal which was filed for the first time was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in CRA No.2252/2024. 4. By order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Trial Court, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a written report was lodged by the victim girl that on 19.08.2024 she was going from her village Sodekela to see an exhibition (Mela) at Raigarh and on the way at about 6.00 p.m., near village Kasaipali, the applicant along-with other co-accused all forcibly took away her to Darri Pond situated on the roadside and threatened to kill her and committed physical sexual intercourse with her one by one. On the basis of the above complaint of the victim, the case was taken up for investigation. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submit that the test identification parade was vitiated. He further submits that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the victim belongs to Schedule Caste. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 21.08.2024, out of 39 prosecution witnesses, only 22 have been examined till date and the appeal is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. In support of his argument, he rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. KA Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 and the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Netram Vs. 3 State of Rajasthan delivered on 06.04.2023 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd bail application no. 219/2023. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in this there are total 7 accused persons in which 6 are major and 1 is Juvenile. The matter is of gang rape and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. The victim has supported the case of prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. However, looking to the detention period of the appellant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham