1 CGHC010259322026 2026:CGHC:41713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1688 of 2026 Sulesh Yadav, S/o- Hemraj Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Kharkhor, Police Station- Pendra, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.). ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Gaurela, District- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.). ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent / State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. The appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989') for grant of anticipatory bail, as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 167/2026, registered at Police Station Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 69, 89, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. NADIM MOHLE Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE Date: 2026.09.26 10:31:18 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant and the prosecutrix came in contact with each other in the year 2021 and met for the first time on 19.06.2021. It is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with the prosecutrix, which continued up to 10.03.2026, thereafter, the appellant refused to marry her and stopped responding to her phone calls. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would contended that the relationship between the parties was entirely consensual, which continued over an extended period of nearly five years. He would further contend that the prosecutrix is a mature, educated lady aged about 29 years, capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her acts. He would argue that there is no whisper in the FIR that the appellant established physical relations with her solely because she belonged to a particular caste or community. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is ready and willing to marry the prosecutrix, and in furtherance thereof, requisite steps have already been taken and their marriage is scheduled to be registered before the Marriage Registrar on 12.10.2026; thus, it is prayed that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and submit that the appellant maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix by extending a false promise of marriage, knowingly very well that she belongs to a particular caste/community; thus, he would pray that appellant may not be released on bail. 6. On 17.08.2026, the prosecutrix appeared before this Court and stated that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the appellant, subject to the appellant solemnizing marriage with her. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made, and perused the case diary as well as the documents available on record. 8. From perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that there is no specific allegation to the effect that the appellant maintained physical relations with the prosecutrix on the ground that she belongs to a particular category. It is an admitted position that the prosecutrix is an educated, major lady aged about 29 years, and the relationship between the parties spanned nearly five years, was consensual in nature. 9. The appellant has also been placed on record some documents to demonstrate that their marriage is fixed for registration before the Marriage Registrar on 12.10.2026. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the consent given by the prosecutrix before this Court on 17.08.2026, and the document placed on record by the appellant to the effect that the marriage between the parties is scheduled for registration on 12.10.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the application for grant of anticipatory bail dated 27.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur is hereby set aside. 11.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant in connection with Crime No. 167/2026 registered at Police Station Gaurela, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.), he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 25,000/- (Rupees ₹ Twenty-Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person 4 acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The Appellant and the surety shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar card along with a colored postcard full- size photo having printed the Aadhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim