1 CGHC010204872026 2026:CGHC:42188 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1342 of 2026 Prabhu Pratap Tandan S/o Hari Narayan Tandan Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Village Jaitpur, P.S. Sarsiva, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As District Bilaigarh In Annexure A-1) (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jaijaipur, Sakti, Ditrict Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Chandra Prakash Lahrey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy G.A. For the objector/complainant : Shri Rahul Singh appears on behalf of Shri Shantanu Kumar, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(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.242/2024 registered at Police Station – Jaijaipur, Sakti, Dist. Sakti (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 376, 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. First bail appeal having been rejected vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in CRA No.1030/2025 (Annexure A/2), the instant appeal is second bail appeal seeking grant of regular bail. 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim, aged about 19 years, lodged a written report on 09.11.2024 to the effect that the present appellant maintained physical relationship on the pretext of marriage for a period of 1 – 2 months and subsequently on account of dispute, he deserted the victim. On such report/complaint, the police arrested the appellant on 10.11.2024 and registered F.I.R. for commission of offence, as stated above. 3. By order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Case No.SCC SC/ST ACT/2/2025, 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 submit that the applicant is member of Scheduled Caste community, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 would not attract against him. He would contend that as per contents of F.I.R., while the appellant and the victim were residing as husband and wife, after marriage, one Abhishek Chandra came to their house and sexually exploited her. He would contend that the victim has already been examined and she has categorically stated that she and the appellant had performed marriage according to their custom and they stayed in a rented house for 40 – 45 days. He would submit that the appellant is in jail since 23.04.2025; the victim has given her consent to grant bail to the appellant and the trial is likely to take some considerable time, therefore, 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 submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. He would submit 3 that the victim has made serious allegations of sexual assault on the pretext of marriage against the appellant. He would submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the appellant is in jail since 23.04.2025. He would contend that the appellant is a member of Scheduled Caste community and there is allegation of sexual abuse against the appellant and co-accused, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the objector/complainant has no objection, if the appellant is granted bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. The appellant is member of Scheduled Caste community, charge-sheet has already been filed; the appellant is in jail since 23.04.2025; in evidence, the victim has categorically stated that she had performed the customary marriage with the appellant and they stayed in a rented house at village Jaijaipur for a period of 15 – 20 days and after dispute, the appellant left that house. 9. Having considered the above discussed facts and the trial is likely to take some considerable time, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dated 13.04.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Case No.SCC SC/ST ACT/2/2025 is set aside. 10. It is directed that 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 4 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