1 2026:CGHC:7720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 152 of 2026 1 - Raj Kumar Sinha S/o Late Ramprasad Sinha Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Kusumkasa, P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) 2 - Kesari Bai W/o Rajkumar Sinha Aged About 47 Years R/o Village- Kusumkasa, P.S. Rajhara, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Rajhra, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Advocate For Objector : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/02/2026 1. 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 against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Balod (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.5/2026 whereby the second bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.292/2025 registered at BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.02.13 11:17:37 +0530 2 Police Station Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 89, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS & Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the appellants is that they along with co-accused, knowingly forced the complainant (a Scheduled Caste member) to undergo abortion without her consent. They also allegedly abused and physically assaulted her. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellants. 3. Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the appellants are in jail since 19.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, the appellants may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State and the Objector oppose the said prayer and submit that the victim became pregnant due to physical relationship with the accused, Indrajeet. He further submits that the accused persons forced her to undergo an abortion on 03.06.2025. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the appellants do not deserve to be released on bail. 5. The victim along with her father appeared in person before this Court today and objected to grant bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There are four accused in total, comprising the appellants, their son Indrajeet, and their daughter Chanchal. It is alleged that Indrajeet had physical relationship with the victim, which resulted in her pregnancy. The trial Court has already granted bail to Indrajeet’s sister Chanchal. The present appeal has been filed by Indrajeet’s parents seeking the grant of bail. 3 8. According to the documents submitted by the victim along with the reply, the victim was handed over to the appellant on 17.06.2025, whereas she had already undergone abortion on 03.06.2025 and the FIR was lodged 3 months later on 17.09.2025. 9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellants are in jail since 19.11.2025 and the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the appellants has been made out. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.01.2026 is set aside. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellants are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to them by the said Court till completion of the trial. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai