1 CGHC010357572026 2026:CGHC:42558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2423 of 2026 1 - Pradeep Jha S/o Shri Bilat Jha Aged About 35 Years R/o Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Khursipar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 30/09/2026 1. This second appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act, 1989’) for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 287/2025 registered at Police Station – Khursipar, District Durg (C.G.) for Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2026.09.30 17:08:25 +0530 2 commission of offence punishable under Sections 74, 296 (on two counts), 351(3), 115(2), 115(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(w)(i) & (ii), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989. 2. Earlier, vide order dated 27.03.2026, the criminal appeal being CRA No.635/2026 preferred by appellant was dismissed by this Court on merit. 3. The prosecution case in short is that the victim, a 25 year old woman, lodged a complaint against the accused/appellant on 06.11.2025 alleging that at around 8.00 am, while her husband was speaking on a mobile phone, the accused/appellant returned from duty on a scooty, verbally abused her husband using caste- based remarks, and slapped him. When the complainant attempted to intervene, the appellant allegedly abused her as well and, with the intent to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand and breast. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against the appellant under Sections 74, 296, 115(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and (ii) of the Act, 1989. 4. By order dated 01.09.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Special SCST Case No.1/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. 3 He further submits that the after dismissal of first bail application of the appellant on 27.03.2026, the victim was examined on 30.07.2026, wherein she has not made any allegation against the accused/appellant and turned hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the accused/appellant is in jail since 07.11.2025 and out of 12 witnesses, only 03 have been examined so far. He also submits that there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future. Learned counsel also submits that though the appellant has criminal antecedents but he got acquittal in all cases. Therefore, considering the evidence of victim, detention period of the appellant and change in circumstances, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposing the bail application and submits that copy of deposition of victim has not been filed. He further submits that the present appellant has as many as 07 criminal antecedents from the year 2007 to 2010, out of which the last antecedent is of the year 2025. He also submits that the victim in her statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS has supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, considering the antecedents and statement of the victim, the appellant may not be granted bail. 7. The victim did not appear before this Court through video conferencing despite the notice. 4 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particularly the fact that at the time of rejection of the appellant’s first bail application on 27.03.2026, the trial had not commenced, whereas subsequently, out of 12 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses have been examined so far and victim’s statement has been recorded on 30.07.2026. Further considering the detention period of the appellant which comes to 10 and half months and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude the trial, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.09.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside. 11. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge pekde