1 2026:CGHC:27442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1244 of 2026 Hadish Ansari S/o Anwar Ansari Aged About 40 Years (Age Of Appellant Not Mentioned Properly In The Order Sheet) R/o Near Jali Factory, Moti Nagar, P.S. Tikarapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tikarapara District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 03/07/2026 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 23.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.14/2026, whereby appellant's application for grant of bail is rejected. 2. Appellant is in jail since 16.02.2026 in connection with Crime No.132/2026 registered at Police Station – Tikarapara, District Raipur VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.07.03 16:08:58 +0530 2 (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. As per case of prosecution, the prosecutrix alleged that the appellant under the false assurance of marriage and by threatening to commit suicide, he regularly established physical relations with her, as a consequence whereof, she conceived and subsequently delivered a male child, and thereafter the appellant refused to marry her. It is further alleged that the appellant committed the said acts despite being aware that the prosecutrix belongs to scheduled tribes community. On the basis of said complaint, case was registered against the appellant. Appellant has committed the said offence and he was arrested on 16.02.2026. 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. He further submits that the victim was working the Bakery shop of the appellant and further submits that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature and FIR was lodged after one year of the incident under the pressure of family members and the appellant is in jail since 16.02.2026, 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 the prosecutrix who belongs to scheduled tribes category was working as a worker in the Bakery shop of the appellant. She further submits that the appellant was aware about social 3 status of the prosecutrix, still the appellant was regularly committed forceful sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, as a consequence of which, she conceived and subsequently delivered a male child, and thereafter the appellant refused to marry her, therefore, the appellant may not be released on bail. 6. Pursuant to order dated 14.05.2026, victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the DLSA Raipur. On being asked, she submits that interim bail may be granted to the appellant for the period of two months. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, perused the material available on record and further looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the accused/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 information. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant