1 CGHC010342092026 2026:CGHC:40630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2071 of 2026  Dhankunwar Yadav W/o Sonu Ram Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dondki, Talabpara, Sakti, P. S. Sakti, District Sakti (C. G.) --- Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Malkharauda, District Sakti C. G. --- Respondent And CRA No. 2200 of 2026  Laxmi Mahant @ Muskan W/o Late Mahendra Das Aged About 32 Years R/o Raghunathpur, P. S. Sitapur District Surguja (C.G.) At Present R/o Village Jhulkadam Ward No. 11, Sakti, P. S. Sakti District Sakti (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P. S. - Malkharauda, District Sakti (C.G.) --- Respondent 2 For Appellants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel and Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 17/09/2026 1. CRA No.2071/2026 has been filed by appellant Dhankunwar Yadav, which is second appeal, and CRA No.2200/2026 has been filed by appellant Laxmi Mahant @ Muskan which is first appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail 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)(v-a) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Earlier, vide order dated 23.03.2026, the first bail application being CRA No.492/2026 preferred by appellant Dhankunwar Yadav was dismissed taking into consideration that the trial had not been commenced at that time and bail applications being CRA Nos.1764/2026 preferred by co-accused Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra respectively, had been allowed by this Court . 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 appellant Lakshmi’s house in Jhulakdam and later to another appellant Dhankunwar Yadav’s 3 house in village Dondki. It has been further alleged in the complaint that in the night, co-accused Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra locked the victim in a room and committed sexual intercourse with her one after another. Further, the present appellants namely Lakshmi and Dhankunwar allegedly assisted in the commission of said crime. Based on the above, offence was registered against the Appellants. 4. 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 victim in her Court statement has not supported the case of the prosecution. The victim along with her mother appeared through video conferencing has raised no objection for grant of bail. It has been also submitted that the appellants are in jail since 14.12.2025, there is no likelihood of the case being decided in near future and co-accused Pradeep and Jhankeshare, who are stated to be the main culprit of the crime, have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2026 passed in CRA No. 1764/2026. Therefore, considering the detention period of the appellants, delay in trial and extension of benefit of bail to co-accused persons, it is prayed that the appeals may be allowed and the appellants may be released on bail. 5. 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 PW-1, father of victim, has deposed in his Court statement that the victim was mentally disturbed. Therefore, at this stage, the Appellants may not be granted bail. 6. The victim along with her mother appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant of bail to the appellants. 4 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the Court statement of the victim, and further taking into consideration the fact that the main accused persons, namely, Pradeep Nirala and Jhankeshwar Chandra, in CRA No. 1764/2026, have already been granted bail, the period of detention undergone by the appellants, the victim’s no objection to their release on bail, and the likelihood of the trial taking some time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellants on bail. 9. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 03.08.2026 in CRA No.2071/2026 and 10.08.2026 in CRA No.2200/2026 passed by the learned Trial Court are set- aside. 10. 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 their appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.17 16:18:39 +0530