1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 675 of 2026 Suresh Kumar Sethiya S/o Budhram Sethiya aged about 23 years R/o Village Rajur, Sorras Para P.S. - Parpa, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Ku. Tulsyan, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 02/04/2026 1. The victim and her mother appeared virtually before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 1/2026, registered at police station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana, Jagdalpur (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 69 of BNS and Sections 3 (2)(v) of SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.02 17:35:56 +0530 2 3. In this case the incident had taken place in between 10.11.2023 to 08.12.2025. The prosecution case is that the appellant and the prosecutrix had a prior acquaintance, working together at the same petrol pump. On 10.11.2023, the appellant on the pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who belongs to SC/ST community. Thereafter, on several occasions he committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter refused to get married. Based on above, offence was registered against the appellant and he was arrested on 16.01.2026. 4. By order dated 02.03.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of atrocities Act), Bastar Place Jagdalpur in Special Criminal Case No.02/2026, the bail application filed by the appellant has been rejected. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The prosecutrix was major at the time of incident aged about 25 years and the appellant was 2 years younger than her. He further submits that there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The appellant is in jail since 16.01.2026, the trial has not commenced till date and is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail. 6. 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. The prosecutrix in he statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, supported the case of prosecution. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the appellant may not be granted bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 3 8. Considering the circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the appellant. Further considering the fact that the trial has not commenced, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to release the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham