1 CGHC010253592026 2026:CGHC:30027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1601 of 2026 Chandrabhan Yadav S/o Shri Durg Vijay Yadav Aged About 28 Years Permanent Resident Of Village Shahpur, Post Ajijabaad, Thana Jahanganj, District - Azamgarh (U.P.) Presently Residing At, Near I S C Railway Siding Beside Hati Petrol Pump, Thana Chhal, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Chaal, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashav Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/07/2026 1. The victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.07.16 14:50:31 +0530 2 under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.11/2026 registered at Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(2) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, in April 2025, the appellant came into contact with the prosecutrix and, despite being aware of her caste, allegedly induced her into a relationship on the false pretext of marriage. It is alleged that on 06.04.2025, the appellant established physical relations with the prosecutrix by deceit. Thereafter, he allegedly continued to subject her to sexual exploitation by threatening to make her obscene photographs and videos viral, and such acts are stated to have continued until 28.01.2026. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix is a major married woman aged about 29 years, while the appellant is also a married person aged about 28 years. It is submitted that the appellant's first appeal seeking for grant of bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.03.2026 passed in CRA No. 619 of 2026, on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been filed. 5. Learned counsel submits that there has been a material change in circumstances inasmuch as the prosecutrix and one other prosecution witness have since been examined before the trial Court. It is contended that from the court statement of the prosecutrix it is evident that she was in communication with the wife of the appellant through chat messages. It is submitted that neither was any obscene photograph or video of the prosecutrix ever made viral, nor has any such photograph or video been recovered or seized during the course of investigation. It is further argued that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the physical relationship between the parties was consensual, having developed out of their existing relationship. Learned counsel submits that out of the total 18 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so 3 far. The appellant has remained in judicial custody since 03.02.2026, and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest. Hence, considering all these facts the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the appellant established physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of marriage. He further submits that the victim has supported the case of prosecution and considering the nature of offence, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the court statement of the victim/prosecutrix and also considering the fact that the victim was already a married major woman, there are total 18 prosecution witnesses out of which only 2 have been examined, the appellant is in jail since 03.02.2026 and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, a case for grant of bail to the appellant is made out. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.06.2026 is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The appellant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 10. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai