1 CGHC010266182026 2026:CGHC:41230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1715 of 2026 1 - Ravi Kumar Rajbhar S/o Rajkumar Rajbhar Aged About 19 Years R/o Village, Post Nasirabad, Kala, Distt. Mau (Uttar Pradesh). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana Kotwali, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 22/09/2026 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 HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.09.23 10:54:03 +0530 2 setting aside of order dated 02/07/2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Bastar, Place - Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 04/2026 whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 174/2026 registered at Kotwali Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that from 21/08/2025 to 22/08/2025, the appellant and the prosecutrix, aged about 26 years, stayed in a hotel room at Jagdalpur where the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix and also took video clips. The incident was reported by the prosecutrix on 24/01/2026 and resultantly, the police registered FIR against the appellant for the aforesaid offences. During the course of the investigation, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and her social-status certificate was obtained and ultimately, the appellant was arrested. 3. Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the appellant and prosecutrix met through social media in the year 2023 and they were having a love affair. He would further contend that the prosecutrix joined the appellant on her own will and there was a consensual relationship between them. He would further submit that there was a delay of 8 months in lodging the report by the prosecutrix 3 and the said delay has not been explained properly. It is also contended that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and moreover, the appellant is in jail from 14/06/2026 and conclusion of trial will likely take some time, therefore, the appellant be released on bail. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 3(ll)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, he would submit that the appellant and prosecutrix were in a love affair and there is no issue of social status of the prosecutrix and there is no such allegation in the FIR as well. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/State, opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. She would submit that the appellant knew very well that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Tribe and he sexually assaulted her and there are serious allegations against the appellant with regard to the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of BNS. Thus, she would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The victim/prosecutrix appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in grant of bail to the appellant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and went through the material available on record. 7. Having considered the fact that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in a love affair since the year 2023 and on 21-22/08/2025, 4 the prosecutrix joined the appellant in a hotel room at Jagdalpur on her own will and subsequently, they maintained physical relation therein and further considering the fact that FIR was lodged with a delay of 8 months and there is no explanation for such delay and lastly, taking into consideration that charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 14/06/2026 and conclusion of trial will likely take some time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to grant bail to the appellant. 8. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 02/07/2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Raigarh, is hereby set-aside. The Appellant – Ravi Kumar Rajbhar 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 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, 5 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 Harneet