1 CGHC010215402026 2026:CGHC:39865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1448 of 2026 Akbar Ali S/o Mohammad Asgar Ali Aged About 27 Years R/o- Banjinpali, Fatahmuda, Ward No.- 32, Thana- Jutemill, Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O- Women Police Station, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Supriya Upasane, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) for setting aside of order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Raigarh (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 44/2026 registered at Women Police Station, PS Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) for 2 commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the victim at Mahila Police Station on 08.05.2026 to the effect that the appellant, known to the victim since 2017, made physical relations with her from 22.08.2022 onwards on the pretext of marriage. He thereafter took her to Delhi in 2023, kept her there for about two years. On 26.02.2026, they allegedly had their last physical relation, after which the accused refused to marry her. On 08.05.2026, the victim lodged the report and during the course of investigation, her statement was recorded and social-status certificate was obtained and the appellant was arrested. 3. Ms. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there was consensual relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix since 2022, therefore, provisions of Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act would not attract. He would contend that the prosecutrix lodged the FIR after a delay of about 4 years without explaining said delay. He would contend that the victim has no objection to the grant of bail to the appellant; thus, he would pray to allow this appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. She would submit that there are serious allegations against the 3 appellant with regard to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS; thus, she would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. On 23.07.2026, the victim/prosecutrix appeared before this Court and stated that she has ‘no objection’ to the grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about 4 years without any explanation for such delay; there was consensual relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix; they were stayed in Delhi for about 2 years; the prosecutrix was a major lady at the time of the incident; the appellant is in jail since 09.05.2026, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 13.05.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Raigarh, is hereby set-aside. The Appellant – Akbar Ali be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders 4 in accordance with law; (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; & (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim