1 CGHC010250872026 2026:CGHC:41762 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1571 of 2026 Deepak Sahu S/o Beeshesar Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 24 Dhan Mandi Ke Pass, Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) is for grant of regular bail to him, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.135/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that a written report was lodged by the victim, aged about 21 years, on 15.03.2026 to the effect that the appellant herein maintained relationship from 25.11.2025 to 14.03.2026 on the pretext of marriage and subsequently, the appellant refused to marry on the ground that she belongs to the member of scheduled Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.26 15:24:17 +0530 2 caste. On such report, the police registered F.I.R. on 15.03.2026 for commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS. Resultantly, the police registered the offences, as stated above. 3. By order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No.135/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there was consensual relationship between the appellant and the victim from 25.11.2025 to 14.03.2026. He would further submit that on the date of incident, age of the victim is around 21 years. He would contend that there was affair between them, and therefore, the offence under Section 69 of the BNS was initially registered against the appellant and subsequently, section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 was also added in the F.I.R. as victim belongs to the member of Scheduled Caste, though the ingredients contained under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 are not present. He would submit that charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 17.03.2026. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant would pray that the instant appeal may be allowed and enlarge the appellant on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail. He would submit that the appellant herein sexually assaulted the victim on pretext of marriage for a period of 4 months and 15 days and further refused to marry her. He would submit that the victim belongs to the member of Scheduled Caste community and the offence was committed by the appellant knowing this fact very well, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. On 06.08.2026, the victim appeared through video conferencing and 3 raised serious objection in granting bail to the appellant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Having considered the fact that the victim was major lady, aged about 21 years; the appellant and the victim were in relationship between 25.11.2025 to 14.03.2026 and when the appellant refused to marry her, the F.I.R. was lodged, it appears that there was consensual relationship between them and the ingredients contained in Section 3 of the Act, 1989, are also not present in the F.I.R.; further, charge sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 17.03.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. 9. Let the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani