1 CGHC010332922026 2026:CGHC:40839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2248 of 2026 1 - Lalan Prasad Jaiswal S/o Sadhucharan Jaiswal, Aged About 75 Years R/o Chandi, Belsar, P.S. - Trikunda, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Ajaak Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 18/09/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 144/1998 registered at police station-Police Outpost-Ajaak Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 450 of IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that, the victim lodged a report at Police Station Chalgli against the present Appellant/Accused-Lalan Jaiswal and Co-accused-Lalji Ahir SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.18 16:37:59 +0530 2 stating that on 03.09.1998, she was at her home, at that time the present appellant and co-accused came there and enquired about her father, upon which her mother informed that he had gone out for grazing cattle. In the meantime, the appellant entered inside the house, caught hold of her hand and started threatening to beat her. Her mother, out of fear, did not say anything and went to call her father. Thereafter, the Appellant took her inside the room and co-accused was pushing her from behind. Thereafter, the appellant forcibly lifted her sari and had committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, thereby committing rape upon her. Thereafter, co-accused-Lalji Yadav also committed rape upon the prosecutrix. On the basis of the aforesaid report lodged by the prosecutrix, an offence under Sections 376(2)(g), 450 of IPC and Section 3(1)(12) of SC/ST. 3. By order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 144/1998, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the appellant is a 75-year-old person and has not committed any offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered in the year 1998 and, despite the passage of about 27 years, the appellant was not arrested. Although it is alleged that the appellant had been absconding since 2004 and was ultimately arrested on 01.07.2026, the appellant has been residing in the same village since 1998. It is, therefore, submitted that the allegation that the appellant was absconding is not borne out by the facts of the case. Learned counsel next submits that the main accused in the incident was Lalji, against whom sufficient evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in jail since 01.07.2026 and that the trial is 3 likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the appellant is the main accused in the incident and committed the alleged offence along with the co-accused, Lalji, who has already been convicted. She further submits that the appellant has been absconding for the last 28 years and has 01 criminal antecedents. She further submits that, if released on bail, there is a likelihood of the appellant again absconding and evading the process of law. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the appellant at this stage and, therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. Today, the prosecutrix appeared before this Court through the concerned DLSA and recorded her ‘no objection’ in granting bail to the appellant. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the material available on record, and further taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is the main accused and had remained absconding for the last 28 years, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the appellant at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal filed by the Appellant is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh