1 2026:CGHC:8715 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 329 of 2026 Laxman Sonwani S/o Sohan Sonwani Aged About 20 Years R/o Kamalpur, Panikapara, Thana, Tehsil and District Surajpur C.G. (Age wrongly mentioned in the Cause tittle of the mpugned order) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- A J K Surajpur District Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent For the appellant : Ms. Shruti Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 18/02/2026 1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant who has been arrested in Crime No. 544/2025 registered at P.S. A J K Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2) (k), 127(2) of BNS 2023 Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.23 15:58:24 +0530 2 2. By impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities Act) Surajpur in Special Trial (Atrocities) the application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail has been rejected, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 03.10.2025, the mother of victim lodged a report that her 26 year old daughter who is deaf had gone out of the house and when she did not return, the mother searched for her. While searching the victim, when the complainant reached in front of appellant’s house where she heard the screaming sound of the victim, but the door was closed from outside. Then she called her son and his friend Kailash and both of them entered from the back wall of appellant’s house and on knocking the door, the accused appellant opened the door, at that time he was wearing underwear and the victim was without clothes in the same room. They tried to catch the accused, but he ran away. When they brought the victim to home and asked her through gestures, she told about the incident. On such report, crime was registered and the accused was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the victim being a major lady of 26 years and mentally sound fit cannot be said to be incapable of consenting merely because she is unable to speak. She submits the prosecution has no where established that the victim is mentally or physically retarded or incapable of understanding the things whereas the police statements of the victim’s mother, brother and sister clearly go to show that the victim is only unable to speak, but is otherwise capable of understanding, 3 responding and communicating through gestures. She next submits that the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the victim was incapable of giving voluntary consent. Even the medical report (Annexure A-3) does not support the prosecution case as it clearly reveals that no fresh injury and bleeding were present. She further submits that the offence u/s 3(2)(v) of the Special Act does not attract to the facts of the present case in view of the settled law that mere fact that victim belongs to a ST is not sufficient for application of section 3(2)(v) unless it is proved that the offence was committed and that such person is a member of SC/ST. Even if the mother of the victim prima facie supports the prosecution's case, her evidence requires further corroboration of other material witnesses (such as the victim herself, her brother, medical experts or other eyewitnesses, if any) who have not yet been examined. She further submits that the appellant is in jail since 04.10.2025, till date out of total 20 witnesses, only one witness – the mother, has been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and supports the order of the trial Court. He submits that the mother has been examined before the trial Court and she has supported the case of prosecution. However, the material witnesses i.e., victim and her brother have not yet been examined and their evidence is crucial for adjudication of the case, therefore, the appellant should not be granted bail, at this stage. 6. The victim along with her mother appeared through VC from 4 the concerned DLSA and the mother raised objection to grant bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the overall facts situation of the case and the submissions made by the parties and further looking to the statement of mother as also the fact that the other material witnesses i.e., victim and her brother are yet to be examined, I am not inclined to release the appellant on bail at this stage. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao