1 CGHC010351222026 2026:CGHC:41379 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2304 of 2026 • Sahil Verma S/o Bhushan Verma, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Baldar Sivani, Shivshankar Chowk, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) At Present R/o Shivam City, Saddu, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23/09/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant who has been arrested in Crime No.603/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 35(2) of BNS and CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.24 14:58:22 +0530 2 section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. By the impugned order dated 12.08.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), District Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. No.03/2026 the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which has been challenged in this appeal. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is the victim who is a student of 21 years has filed a complaint on 06.12.2025 alleging that the appellant has forcibly established physical relations with her who belonged to scheduled caste without her consent and and further threatened to kill her. On such report, crime was registered and the appellant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a second appeal and that the appeal has been preferred on the ground that the appellant is in custody since 07.12.2025 and that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of the victim recorded before the trial Court and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the victim has been examined and, in her statement recorded before the trial Court, she has supported the prosecution case, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. 6. Today, the father and mother of the victim appeared before this court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised an 3 objection with regard to grant of bail to the appellant. They further submit that their daughter, i.e., the victim, died on 11.09.2026. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the present appellant had earlier preferred Criminal Appeal No.527 of 2026 for grant of bail, which was considered and rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026. 9. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the parents of the victim and learned counsel for the respective parties; as also the material available on record, no change in circumstances has occurred so as to warrant the grant of bail to the appellant, I am not inclined to release the appellant on regular bail. Accordingly, this second appeal is rejected. 10. However, looking to the custody period of the appellant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 11. Registry is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Chandrakant