1 2026:CGHC:25055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1060 of 2026 Rohit Kushwaha S/o Shri Pramod Kushwaha Aged About 26 Years R/o Raikera Kenapara, Police Station Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District- Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Aditya Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Mishra, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 19/06/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) is for grant of regular bail to him, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 82/2026 registered at Police Station – Sitapur, Dist. Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M) of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the accused/appellant, on account of acquaintance, had developed a relationship with the prosecutrix and thereafter established physical relations with her on several occasions Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.06.19 17:15:36 +0530 2 on the false pretext of marriage and thereafter the appellant/accused avoided her, which has given rise to the complaint by the prosecutrix. Based upon the complaint, offence under the above sections has been registered on 03.03.2026 against the present appellant. 3. By order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 82/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/accused has not committed any offence. He further submits that the appellant is innocent and is falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the victim/prosecutrix is a major and although she is educated, but is a consenting party and that, the appellant has not refused to marry her. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 03.03.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised; 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 for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the statement of the victim itself is sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant has committed the aforesaid offence, therefore, the Appellant may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The victim appeared through V.C. provided by the DALSA Sarguja and has raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the alleged nature and gravity of the offence, this Court 3 does not find fit it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the appellant/accused. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 1060/2026 is liable to be and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani