1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 217 of 2026 Himanshu Sinha S/o Ganpat Sinha Aged About 26 Years R/o Gotatola, P.S. Gotatola, Distt. Manpur Mohla Ambagah Chaucki (Correct Name- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki) (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh By P.S. Balod, Dist. Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14(A)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balod (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 103 of 2025 arising out of Crime Number: 432 of 2025, registered at Police Station: Balod, District: Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 2 Sections 69 of BNSS and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. In this case, the age of the prosecutrix is about 26 years. The prosecutrix and the appellant were batchmates as M.Sc students and when the appellant proposed to the prosecutrix and expressed his love for her and told her that he would marry her, he developed physical relationship and explored several places and stayed together. Thereafter, the appellant refused to marry her. The matter was reported to the police station: Balod and on 17.10.2025 the charge sheet was filed. During course of investigation, on 11.12.2025, the Appellant was arrested. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. There was a love relationship between the prosecutrix and the present Appellant, due to which they have made physical relationships. He further submits that the prosecutrix and the appellant were classmates, therefore, it is prayed that the Appellant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the appeal. 5. Prosecutrix has appeared through Video Conferencing through concerned DLSA and she has raised objection for grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available in record. 7. The age of the victim at the time of incident was approximately 26 years. On perusal of case diary, I have found that there is a love relationship between the victim and the appellant and as per allegation, the appellant has committed rape with victim on assurance of marriage and thereafter he denied for marriage. Charge-sheet has been filed. 3 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the fact that the Appellant is in jail since 11.12.2025, without further commenting on other merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. 10. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one local solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saurabh