1 CGHC010271512026 2026:CGHC:32432 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1764 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Nirala S/o Amaru Ram Nirala Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kurda, P.S. Malkharoda District Sakti C.G. (Mentioned as S/o Amaru Nirala In The Impugned Order) 2 - Jhankeshwar Chandra S/o Umend Singh Chandra Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Sonadula, P.S. Malkharoda, District Sakti C.G. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Malkharoda District Sakti C.G. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal and Mr. Ishwar Chandra, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 28/07/2026 1. This second appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the 2 appellants as they are arrested in connection with Crime No. 305/2025 registered at police station Malkharoda, District Sakti (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 127(61) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Earlier, vide order dated 23.03.2026, the criminal appeals being CRA Nos.492/2026, 498/2026 and 505/2026 preferred by appellants Dhankunwar Yadav, Jhankeshwar Chandra and Pradeep Nirala, respectively had been dismissed by this Court on merit, and at the relevant time, the trial had not been commenced. Now, the present second appeal has been preferred by appellants Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra only. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, victim/complainant lodged a written report alleging therein that on 31.10.2025, while she was near the village pond, the accused persons namely Jhankeshwar Chandra (Appellant No.2) and Lakshi Mahant @ Muskan, allured her that they would buy jewellery, clothes for her and also secure job in Sakti, and took her on their motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused persons first took the victim to co-accused Lakshmi’s house in Jhulakdam and later to another co-accused Dhankunwar Yadav’s house in village Dondki. It has been further alleged in the complaint that in the night, the present appellants Pradeep Nirala (A-1) and Jhankeshwar Chandra (A-2) locked the victim in a room and committed sexual intercourse with her one after another. Further, the other accused persons namely Lakshmi and Dhankunwar allegedly assisted in the commission of said crime. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellants. 4. By order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 305/2025, the bail application filed by the appellants has been rejected against which the appellants have filed this appeal. 3 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the appellants are in custody since 14.12.2025, and out of 18 witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined so far. He also submits that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile & there is no likelihood of their case being decided in near future. Therefore, considering the detention period of the appellants and change in circumstances, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that named FIR has been lodged against the appellants and the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellants may not be granted bail. 7. The victim appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant of bail to the appellants. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particular the statement of the victim who is a major lady. Further considering the detention period of the appellants and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude the trial, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellants on bail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside. 11. It is directed that the appellants shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for 4 their appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.07.29 11:54:00 +0530