1 2026:CGHC:16912 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 739 of 2026 1 - Vinod Rathore S/o Ram Lal Rathore, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Dojara, Ward No. 04, Post Lalpur, P.S. Gaurela, Distt. Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Gaurela, Distt. Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Seema Singh, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/04/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/2026 registered at police station Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 and 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the appellant developed an acquaintance with the prosecutrix and allegedly established physical relations with her under the false pretext of marriage. He subsequently refused to marry her and made certain caste- related remarks. On report being made in this regard by the prosecutrix, an offence was registered against the appellant. 3. By order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge in Crime No. 44/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.04.14 13:40:17 +0530 2 has been rejected against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that the appellant is a 55-year-old government employee with two children, and the prosecutrix was well aware of this. The prosecutrix is a 32-year-old widow. She further submits that a complaint was filed by the appellant's son, on 13.02.2026, alleging a false case registered against his father. The complaint mentions phone numbers of Sub-Inspector Rohit Dahariya and the prosecutrix, indicating they were in regular contact, suggesting the appellant has been falsely implicated and no offence was made out against him. She also points out a 34 days delay in lodging the FIR and argues that the medical report doesn't support the prosecutrix's claim. The appellant had helped the prosecutrix financially, and when he asked for return, she falsely implicated him. The appellant has been in jail since 28.01.2026, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed, and the appellant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is sufficient evidence available on record against the Appellant, therefore, at this stage, the Appellant may not be granted bail. 6. On 08.04.2026, the prosecutrix appeared in person and recorded her ‘objection’ in granting bail to the appellant. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and further noting that both the prosecutrix and the appellant are previously married (the prosecutrix being a widow), the appellant has been in jail since 28.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the 3 opinion that it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside. 9. 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 Sourabh P.