1 2026:CGHC:26308 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1306 of 2026 Gopal Goyal S/o Satyanarayan Goyal, Aged about 42 years, R/o Swarnbhoomi Colony, Sector 114, Vidhan Sabha, PS Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Advocate (through VC) with Ms. Vedagni Jangde, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short, 'Act of 1989') is filed against impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, (Atrocities), Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.16/2026, whereby appellant's bail application is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 09.03.2026 in connection with Crime VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.30 16:19:35 +0530 2 No.152/2026 registered at Police Station – Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. As per case of prosecution, on 08.03.2026, a written complaint filed by the prosecutrix in the Civil Lines Police Station, Raipur, alleging that she is married with two children and belongs to scheduled castes category. The prosecutrix has alleged that she lives on rent at Shankar Nagar, Raipur, where around one year ago, the appellant also started living on rent. Meanwhile, in April, 2025, when she was about three months pregnant, the appellant entered in her house and forcible raped her and threatened her. She further alleged that the appellant took private photographs of her after raping and threatened that if she told her husband or anyone else about the incident, he would show the photographs to them and ruin her married life and the appellant continued to rape her. On the basis of that, matter reported against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. They further submit that the prosecutrix and the appellant used to work together at Bhasin Motors in 2013 during when they got acquainted with to each other, eventually they entered into a relationship which has been consistently going on and they were in consensual relationship since 2013. They further submit that the prosecutrix met the applicant at various occasions in hotels in Raipur and stayed with him. The 3 prosecutrix’s main motive was to use her relationship with the applicant for monetary benefits to maintain her. They further submit that there is also delay in lodging the FIR by the prosecutrix and medical evidence is also no supported the case of prosecution. They also submit that the appellant is in jail since 09.03.2026, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, appellant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that when the prosecutrix was pregnant for three months and when she was alone in her house, appellant was entered in her house and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and threatened that if she told her husband of anyone else about the incident, he would ruin her married life, therefore, the appellant may not be released on bail. 6. Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the victim. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and further looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant