1 2026:CGHC:13732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 492 of 2026 Dhankunwar Yadav W/o Sonu Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Dondki, Talabpara, Sakti, Police Station - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Malkharauda, District - Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Bahrani, P.L. CRA No. 498 of 2026 Jhankeshwar Chandra S/o Umend Singh Chandra, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sonadula Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Malkharoda, District- Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Bahrani, P.L. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.25 10:00:58 +0530 2 CRA No. 505 of 2026 Pradeep Nirala S/o Amaru Ram Nirala Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kurda, Police Station Malkharouda, District Sakti Chhattisgarh (In Impugn Order Mentioned As S/o Amaru Nirala) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Malkharouda District Sakti Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. K. K. Bahrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23.03.2026 1. On 19.03.2026, the victim and her mother appeared virtually and raised objection in granting bail to the appellants. 2. These three appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) have been preferred by the appellants against the orders dated 19.01.2026, 22.01.2026 & 29.01.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC & ST (PA) Act, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) whereby the bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the appellants in respect of Crime No.305/2025 registered at Police Station Malkharauda, District Sakti (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 127 of BNS and Section 3 (2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act have been rejected. 3. As per the prosecution case, the victim resides with her grandparents as her parents work as laborers in Hyderabad. On 31.10.2025, while she was near the village pond, the accused, Jhankeshwar Chandra and Lakshmi Mahant (alias Muskan), lured her onto a motorcycle with promises of buying 3 her jewelry and clothes, and securing a job in Sakti. They first took her to co-accused Lakshmi’s house in Jhulakdam and later to appellant Dhankunwar Yadav’s house in Village Dondki. That night, appellants Jhankeshwar Chandra and Pradeep Nirala locked her in a room and committed sexual intercourse with her one after the other. Co-accused Lakshmi and appellant Dhankunwar reportedly assisted in the commission of the crime. The next morning, 01.11.2025, the accused dropped the victim back at her village. The victim later informed her sister and parents about the incident. Following her written report, FIR was registered at Police Station Malkharoda against the four named accused for the said offence. The appellants were arrested on 14.12.2025. The bail applications filed by the appellants were rejected by the trial Court vide impugned orders leading to the filing of these appeals for grant of bail. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. They submit that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the prosecutrix was a major at the time of incident and accompanied the appellants of her own free will. They submit that there is no definite opinion in the MLC report regarding the commission of offence. They further submit that the appellants are in jail since 14.12.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest as it has not yet commenced. Therefore, considering all these facts, bail ought to be granted to the appellants. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the said prayer and submits that named FIR was registered against the four accused persons and it has been explained that the delay in lodging the FIR happened because the parents were working in Hyderabad and could only file the report after they 4 returned. Hence, considering the nature of offence, the appellants are not eligible for grant of bail and the appeal should be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the appellants and also considering the fact that the trial has not commenced, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the three appeals stand dismissed. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai