1 CGHC010191542026 2026:CGHC:40854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1236 of 2026 1 - Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o. Shri Duryodhan Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village Chhichhor Umaria, Police Station Pusour, District- Raigarh (C.G.), Presently R/o. Sai Mandir Road, Anukool Paridhan Gali Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhinagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Gandhinagar, District- Surguja (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.09.2026 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 Act of 1989”) for setting aside of order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities),Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No.(Bail application) No.290/2026 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) -2- for commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3((2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix alleged that she and the appellant came to know each other while working at Hero Anand Showroom, Ambikapur. It is further alleged that on 10.08.2023, the appellant established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage and continued the same on several occasions, lastly on 22.02.2026. Thereafter, the appellant married another girl. The case was registered on 03.04.2026 under Section 69 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, and the appellant was arrested on 05.04.2026. 3. Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual. He would further submit that, on the date of the incident, the victim was 30 years of age and the appellant and the victim were in a relationship for about three years. With regard to Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no allegation that the appellant committed the offence knowing the fact that the victim belonged to a particular category. He would further submit that, to attract Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, the prosecution is required to establish that the offence was committed with such knowledge; however, there is no such allegation in the charge-sheet. 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 3 the appellant. He would submit that there are serious allegations against the appellant with regard to the commission of an offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS. He would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the fact that the victim was a major lady aged about 30 years and she had maintained a relationship with the appellant for a period of about three years, and further considering that there is no allegation that the offence was committed by the appellant knowing the fact that the victim belonged to a particular category, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 05.04.2026, I am inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Bail Application No.290/2026 is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to 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 in accordance with law. -4- (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. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court should make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 9. 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 Rekha