1 CGHC010261522026 2026:CGHC:41527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1717 of 2026 1 - Rajnesh Prasad S/o- Santosh Gupta Aged About 26 Years R/o- Palhekala, Police Station- Patan, District- Palamu, (Jharkhand) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 24/09/2026 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: 2026.09.25 11:14:23 +0530 2 setting aside of order dated 29/06/2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Case No. 44/2026 whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 475/2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the victim on 17/07/2025 making allegation that the present appellant sexually assaulted her on the pretext of marriage from 07/01/2024 till the date of lodging FIR. It is also alleged that the applicant and the victim stayed together in Nagpur for a period of 45 days. On the said complaint, police registered the aforesaid offence against the present applicant and subsequently, arrested him on 11/05/2026. 3. Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the victim is aged about 25 years and therefore, she was in a consensual relationship with the appellant. It is also contended that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and moreover, the appellant is in jail from 11/05/2026 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(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, he would contend that there is no allegation in the FIR 3 that the appellant committed the alleged offence knowing the fact that victim belongs to Scheduled Tribes community, therefore, the provisions contained under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act would not apply. 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 victim belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and there are serious allegations of sexual assault against the appellant. Thus, she would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and submitted that she has no objection in releasing the appellant on bail. 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 FIR as well as other documents available on record, it is evident that there was a consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim from 07/01/2024 till the date of lodging FIR on 17/07/2025 and it also appears that the appellant and victim stayed together at various places including Nagpur wherein they stayed together for a period of 45 days, further considering that the victim has given her consent for releasing the appellant on bail, charge-sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 11/05/2026 and conclusion of trial will 4 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. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 02/07/2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Ambikapur is hereby set-aside. The Appellant – Rajnesh Prasad 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, 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 5 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/-Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet