1 2026:CGHC:26649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1284 of 2026 1 - Indrajeet Sinha S/o Raj Kumar Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Kusumkasa, P.S. Rajhara District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 30/06/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 292/2025 registered at police station Dallirajhara, District Balod (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 85, 89, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the allegation against the present appellant is that he along with other co- Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.06.30 17:11:05 +0530 2 accused persons, knowingly forced the complainant (a Scheduled Caste member) to undergo abortion without her consent. He also allegedly abused and physically assaulted her. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant and other co-accused persons. 3. By order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Sessions Case No. 5/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. The first CRA No. 816 of 2026 has been rejected on merit by this Court on 09.04.2026. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that after dismissal of first CRA No. 816/2026, only one witness i.e. the victim, has been examined on 17.04.2026 out of 19 listed witnesses. The other co-accused persons i.e. father and mother of the appellant, have already been granted bail by this Court on 11.02.2026 in CRA No. 152/2026, and one co-accused, the sister of the appellant, has also been granted bail by the trial Court. The appellant is in jail since 19.11.2025, 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. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the statement of the victim has been recorded before the Court, in which she has clearly stated against the appellant, after dismissal of first CRA No. 816/2026 on merit on 3 09.04.2026, there is no change of circumstances, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be enlarged on bail. 7. The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail to the appellant. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant, and further looking to the fact that after dismissal of first CRA No. 816/2026 on 09.04.2026, there is no change of circumstances, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11.However, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 19.11.2025, it is an exceptional case, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 12.Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu