1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 816 of 2026 Indrajeet Sinha S/o Raj Kumar Sinha Aged About 24 Years R/o Kusumkasa, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the appellant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09/04/2026 1. This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short “the SC/ST Act”) has been preferred against the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Balod (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.5/2026 whereby the second bail application filed by the appellants under Section 483 of BNSS in Crime No.292/2025 registered at Police Station Rajhara, District Balod (C.G.) for the offence punishable under ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.04.13 12:12:13 +0530 2 Sections 85, 89, 296, 115(2), 3(5) of BNS & Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been rejected. 2. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the appellant is that he along with other accused, knowingly forced the complainant (a Scheduled Caste member) to undergo abortion without her consent. He also allegedly abused and physically assaulted her. On report being lodged in this regard, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the appellant and other accused. 3. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the victim is wife of appellant, their marriage was performed in Arya Samaj and before the marriage there was love affair between them. The victim has given consent for removing her three months pregnancy and according to the opinion of doctor, there was no forcible abortion. He submits that after mediation, compromise has been arrived between the parties and subsequently the FIR under special Act has been registered. Hence the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. He submits that co-accused i.e., sister and parents of appellant have been granted bail whereas this appellant is in jail since 19.11.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its completion, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the said prayer and submits that the victim became pregnant due to physical relations established by the appellant. The victim was constrained to undergo abortion on 03.06.2025 and even thereafter, the appellant used to abuse and beat her after consuming liquor. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, the appellant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. The victim is not connected to the VC from the concerned DLSA, therefore, her opinion could not be recorded. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 7. There are four accused in total, comprising the appellant, his parents and his sister. It is alleged that the applicant had physical relationship with the victim, which resulted in her pregnancy and she was forced to undergo abortion and thereafter, he used to abuse and assault her. The trial Court has already granted bail to applicant’s sister Chanchal and this Court has granted bail to the parents of the applicant. The present appeal has been filed by the husband Indrajeet Sinha . 8. Looking to the over-all facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao