1 CGHC010302632026 2026:CGHC:42393 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2008 of 2026 1 - Nitesh Yadav S/o- Shayam Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o- Namnakala, Near Sant Harkeval School, Police Station- Gandhinagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Prakant Sethi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Saini, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 29/09/2026 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 2 setting aside of order dated 04/07/2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) whereby the regular bail application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with Crime No. 412/2026 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 69 of BNS and Section 3(ll) (va) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 has been rejected. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the victim on 16/06/2026 alleging that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant sexually assaulted the victim from 05/03/2026 till 28/05/2026 on account of which, the victim conceived and thereafter, the appellant refused to marry her. 3. Mr. Prakant Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that appellant is a married man and this fact was well within the knowledge of the victim. He would further submit that there was a love affair between the appellant and the victim and their relationship was consensual in nature. It is also contended that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and moreover, the appellant is in jail from 17/06/2026 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 victim were in a love affair and there is no issue of social status of the victim and there is no such allegation in the FIR as well. 3 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kanwaljeet Saini, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/State, opposes the criminal appeal and the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit that the appellant knew very well that the victim belonged to Scheduled Tribe and he sexually assaulted her and there are serious allegations of sexual assault against the appellant. It is also argued that appellant has one previous criminal antecedent pertaining to the year 2025 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69, 65(1), 351(3) of BNS, Section 4 of POCSO and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w-ii) of SC/ST Act and the the said case is still pending. Thus, he would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. The victim 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 victim were in a love affair since the year 2021, the relationship between them appears to be consensual in nature as the previous case pending against the appellant has also been filed by the victim with similar allegations; further having considered that victim is a major aged about 19 years and no allegation has been made that the offence was committed by the appellant keeping in mind that the victim belonged to a particular category; lastly considering that charge- 4 sheet has been filed and appellant is in jail since 17/06/2026 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. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 04/07/2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Atrocities), Sarguja, Ambikapur, is hereby set-aside. The Appellant – Nitesh Yadav 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, 5 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/-Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet