1 CGHC010207642026 2026:CGHC:28228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1331 of 2026 1 - Sumeet Kumar Navik S/o Sunil Navik Aged About 27 Years R/o Vill. Khukhari Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 08/07/2026 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. 03/2025 registered at police station AJAK, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3- 1(R-S) and 3(2)(Va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 376(2)(n), and 313 of IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 10.10.2025, a written complaint was filed alleging therein that the Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.09 10:07:40 +0530 2 appellant made the complainant his wife by deceiving her with the promise of marriage and continued to have physical relations with the complainant in the year 2022. During this, when the complainant became pregnant, the accused/appellant got an abortion and now refuses to marry her, has abused, threatened to kill her and has left her alone. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellant. 3. By order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 03/2025, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this second CRA (appeal). 4. The first CRA of the appellant had been dismissed as withdrawn on 30.01.2026 in CRA No. 130/2026. 5.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 the victim has been examined before the trial Court. The victim is a 32-year-old married, deserted lady. The victim was a contenting party, and the victim and the appellant performed a court marriage. He lastly submits that the appellant is in jail since 04.11.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalised, as only 3 witnesses out of 14 have been examined till date, 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 there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant. The appellant was already married to another woman, and he had tortured the victim. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 3 7. On 03.07.2026, the victim appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the appellant. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the prosecutrix is a major, married and deserted lady, further looking to the Court statement of the victim and considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 04.11.2025, and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set- aside. 11.It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu